A California appeals court has sided with environmentalists in a decision that blames Los Angeles County and its flood control district for sending polluted runoff into the Pacific Ocean.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the county is responsible for the heavily polluted storm water flowing untreated each year down the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper environmental groups say the ruling is a turning point in the battle for clean water. Council attorney Aaron Colangelo says the county must now eliminate the flow of pollutants.

The Los Angeles Times says the Flood Control District argued its channels were simply conduits for upstream polluters, but the court says the district controls the flow to the ocean.

Vivendi SA said Wednesday it will significantly reduce the EUR550 million provision it had made to cover potential damages for a U.S. class action case after a U.S. judge narrowed the size of the class.

The Paris-based company's potential liabilities have been slashed by 80% in light of the court victory, which will free up more cash as the group prepares to buy out Vodafone PLC's minority stake in telecoms operator SFR.

Vivendi made the provision in its 2009 accounts to cover any eventual payout after a jury in January last year found the company liable for 57 misstatements about its financial condition in the two years leading up to its near bankruptcy in 2002.

The damages arising from the ruling in January 2010, which was based on a class involving shareholders outside the U.S., could have totaled more than $9 billion, according to lawyers for the shareholders, although Vivendi's lawyer Herve Pisani rejected the sum as "unfounded."

The ruling Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Richard Holwell that shareholders who bought Vivendi shares outside the U.S. are barred from bringing fraud claims against the company in the U.S., considerably narrowed the overall size of the potential class.

Albany Medical Center will pay $4.5 million to settle its share of a federal class-action lawsuit alleging officials conspired with counterparts at other hospitals in the area to keep pay down for about 4,000 registered nurses.

Court documents say similar settlements for about 2 percent of nurses' pay from June 2002 to June 2006 were reached with companies operating St. Peter's Hospital in Albany, St. Mary's Hospital and Samaritan Hospital in Troy and Albany Memorial Hospital.

The hospital companies admit no wrongdoing. The suit is still pending against Ellis Hospital in Schenectady.

A call to Albany Med was not immediately returned Wednesday.

Attorney Daniel Small, representing the nurses, says about $9 million altogether is in an escrow account pending the end of the case. Lawyers are requesting one-third.

As it scrambled to placate the 400 ticketholders who didn't get a seat to Super Bowl XLV, the NFL has a second group of angry fans on its hands.

Eagan Avenatti, LLP, a law firm specializing in consumer rights, launched an investigation into claims that the Cowboys deceived season ticket holders into buying $1,200 seats with obstructed views.

While the NFL took the blame for the 400 fans whose temporary seats weren't ready for Sunday's game, Avenatti took aim at Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

"These season ticket holders are rightfully irate at Jones and the Cowboys," attorney Michael Avenatti said in a statement. "Jones sold the very fans that helped finance the construction of the stadium on the idea of attending the Super Bowl, took their money, and then put them in illegitimate seats with obstructed views. What team or owner on the planet would treat its best fans like this?"

Known as the "Founders," the fans helped finance the $1.2 billion stadium, contributing more than $100 million in personal seat licenses and another $3 million in annual season ticket sales. Each paid at least $100,000 in PSLs.

"We will get to the bottom of this," Avenatti said. "And when we do, I expect we will find that greed and ego had a lot to do with what happened."

Meanwhile, the NFL expanded its makeup offerings to the 400 fans who had tickets but didn't even get a seat on Super Sunday. The league's offering includes the option of a free ticket to next year's Super Bowl game plus a cash payment of $2,400 (triple the original face value of Sunday's ticket) or a ticket to a future Super Bowl, including next year's if so desired, plus round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, but not the $2,400. They can wait until after the conference championship games each season to see whether their favorite team reaches the Super Bowl.

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Life Partners Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: LPHI) ("Life Partners" or the "Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired Life Partners' securities between May 29, 2007 and January 19, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Life Partners and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Life Partners is a specialty financial services company and the parent company of Life Partners, Inc. ("LPI").  LPI is engaged in the secondary market for life insurance known generally as "life settlements."  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:  (1) that the Company had routinely used unrealistic life expectancy data that produced inaccurately short life expectancy reports, which were subsequently used to sell life settlement policies to investors; (2) that the Company had purposely concealed the historical rate in which individuals insured by life settlement policies sold by Life Partners had lived past the life expectancy rates previously provided to investors, such that the Company's investors were unable to assess the accuracy or reliability of such data; (3) that by underestimating the life expectancy data to investors, the Company was able to charge substantially larger fees when brokering life settlement policies; (4) that the Company's revenues had been significantly increased through the employment of such business practices; (5) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times; (6) that such business practices, when they were discovered, would initiate an investigation by the federal authorities into the Company's business practices; (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On December 21, 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article questioning the Company's life-expectancy estimates and business practices.  The article followed a comprehensive investigation into how the Company sold life settlement policies to investors.  In particular, the article stated that Life Partners "has made large fees from its life-insurance transactions while often significantly underestimating the life expectancies of people whose policies its customers invest in."  Then on January 20, 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported, and the Company subsequently confirmed, that the SEC was investigating Life Partners. The article reported that "As part of its probe, the SEC's enforcement division has been seeking experts to analyze the way Life Partners has estimated the life expectancies of the insured individuals."  On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $2.58 per share, or over 17 percent, to close on January 20, 2011 at $12.46 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  The Company's stock continued to decline as additional news about Life Partners was subsequently reported.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than April 4, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. 

CONTACT:

Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 

Darren J. Check, Esq. 

D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. 

280 King of Prussia Road 

Radnor, PA 19087 

1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 

Or by e-mail at info@btkmc.com

The plaintiff for the case, Patrick Hendricks, claims that the "phantom data" over-charges were also found by an independent consulting company, which the complaint says "purchased an iPhone from an AT&T store, immediately disabled all push notifications and location services, confirmed that no email account was configured on the phone, closed all applications, and let the phone sit untouched for ten days."

Hendricks' complaint states that the consulting firm found that nearly 2.3 megabytes of data were charged against the new account for that 10 day period. The suit says that this is "like a rigged gas pump charging you when you never even pulled your car into the station." The complaint says that a 2 month study conducted by the consulting firm showed that AT&T typically over charged for data by 7 to 14 percent, and sometimes as much as by 300 percent. The study also claims that the actual data sessions are not posted in a timely manner, often leading to data use near the end of a billing cycle being applied to the next month.

LexisNexis has been charging litigants "unconscionable" rates to file online documents in Texas federal courts, creating a poll tax-like situation that creates an unconstitutional barrier to open courts, a class action claims in Bexar County Court. The company, and its Netherlands-based parent, Reed Elsevier, faces similar lawsuits in Georgia and Texas federal court.

Lead plaintiff Karen McPeters says she was affected by the LexisNexis' deceptive practices when the discrimination case she filed against Montgomery County, Texas, was transferred to that county's court, where electronic filing is mandatory, in September 2007.

LexisNexis unlawfully conceals that it charges "nearly $16 for every piece of paper filed" online in Montgomery County District Court, according to the complaint.
    "