Two San Francisco newspapers engaged in a lengthy legal battle over predatory pricing have settled their dispute outside of court.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Bay Guardian and SF Weekly announced a settlement Monday but did not disclose its terms.

The Guardian filed an antitrust lawsuit against SF Weekly in 2004, accusing the paper of slashing advertising prices to drive the Guardian out of business. A San Francisco judge in 2008 ordered SF Weekly to pay $21 million to its rival.

SF Weekly has said its low-cost ads reflected fair competition and did not violate antitrust laws.

Both alternative weeklies are distributed for free and rely on ad revenue to continue operating.

Dairy processor Dean Foods Co. will pay $30 million and take other undisclosed actions to settle allegations by a group of dairy farmers that it had monopolized the milk industry in the Northeast.

The settlement does not include another major player in the national dairy industry that had been named in the original lawsuit.

"This settlement with Dean will help our dairy farmers who have been hurting for too long," said Burlington attorney Andrew Manitsky, who represents Vermont dairy farmers involved in the case.

Manitsky said he couldn't provide any details of the settlement until the case has been submitted to a federal judge in Burlington, which is expected to happen next week.

Dallas-based Dean Foods revealed the settlement in a submission Thursday to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

It said the company had agreed to the payment as a way to settle the "purported class action antitrust lawsuit." It also said it would agree with other terms and conditions for its "raw milk procurement activities at certain of its processing plants located in the northeast." It did not elaborate.

The Supreme Court will consider whether to keep alive the largest job discrimination case in U.S. history, a lawsuit against Wal-Mart that grew from a half-dozen women to a class action that could involve billions of dollars for more than a half million female workers.

Wal-Mart is trying to halt the lawsuit, with the backing of many other big companies concerned about rules for class-action cases — those in which people with similar interests increase their leverage by joining in a single claim. Class actions against discount seller Costco and the tobacco industry are among pending claims that the high court’s decision might alter.

The suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. contends that women at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores are paid less and promoted less often than men. The case the high court accepted on Monday will not examine whether the claims are true, only whether they can be tried together.

Estimates of the size of the class range from 500,000 to 1.5 million women who work or once worked for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is appealing a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the class-action lawsuit could go to trial.

Tobacco giant Altria Corp., Bank of America Corp., Dole Food Company Inc., General Electric Co., Intel Corp., Pepsico Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. are among the companies that also called for high court review of the case.

The fate of the largest job bias lawsuit in the nation's history — a claim that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shortchanged women in pay and promotions for many years — hinges on whether the Supreme Court will let the class-action case go to trial.

The court is likely to announce as soon as Monday whether it will hear the retail giant's appeal asserting that a single lawsuit cannot speak for more than 1.5 million employees.

Business lawyers and civil rights advocates are closely following the Wal-Mart case for its implications for class-action litigation.
"This may sound like just a technical, procedural issue, but because of the economics of it, class-action certification is often the most important issue to be decided," said Washington lawyer Roy T. Englert Jr.

If the high court permits the Wal-Mart case to proceed as a class action, it will put enormous pressure on the retailer to settle, he said. The plaintiffs have not specified the damages they would seek, but given the size of the class, it could mount into billions of dollars.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several large corporations have joined with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in urging the high court to hear the appeal and to restrict the use of class-action claims.

They argue that it is unfair to permit plaintiffs' lawyers to lump together many thousands of employees from stores spread across the country and to rely on statistics to prove illegal discrimination.

Investors in the failed agricultural investment scheme manager, Great Southern Group, have launched a class action against the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank which lent them money.

The bank took up the loans which were initially taken out with the Great Southern Group before it was placed in receivership in May 2009.

The 280 investors involved owe a total of around $14 million.

Law firm DC Legal has launched the class action in the Federal Court.

Solicitor Bruce Dennis says it wants all of these loans wiped off the books.

"The bank bought the loans from the Great Southern Group and our contention is that they bought the loans with all the problems inherent with the loans," he said.

Mr Dennis says the investors would not have taken out the loans if they had been provided with more information.

"The investors were misled as to the returns that they could expect," he said.

"Investors in many cases were not told that the financial advisers were being highly remunerated and investors were not told that the company was relying on continuing to sell New Woodlands in order to stay in business."

Vicki Busby, on behalf of herself and other people similarly situated, sued JRHBW Realty, Inc., d/b/a RealtySouth (hereinafter referred to as "RealtySouth") alleging that RealtySouth violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") by charging individuals a $149 "ABC Fee" (sometimes called an "administrative brokerage commission") for which no service was performed. RealtySouth denies the allegations of the lawsuit.

The Court certified the case as a class action. Notice was sent to all potential class members in December 2008. You can find that notice and more information about the case and the claims process at www.hwnn.com/realtysouthclassaction.

The Court has entered partial summary judgment finding RealtySouth liable as a matter of law for charging a $149 "ABC Fee" (sometimes referred to as an "administrative brokerage commission") that was unearned under RESPA.

RealtySouth maintains the right to contest an individual’s claim for damages by contesting whether or not the person is a member of the class, including whether their transaction is covered by RESPA, and whether they in fact paid the fee or whether it was paid for them. Thus, to receive payment, class members must submit the enclosed claim form and supporting documentation to the claims administrator in order to be eligible for payment.

The claim form and accompanying paperwork must be submitted to the claims administrator. The claims administrator is Dahl, Inc. Claim Forms and supporting documentation must be postmarked, e-mailed, or faxed by December 15, 2010. Claims should be mailed to:

RealtySouth Claims Administrator
C/O Dahl, Inc.
P.O. Box 2061
Faribault, MN 55021-2061.
Claim forms and supporting documents may also be faxed to 1-507-384-0024 or e-mailed to realtysouthclaims@dahl-inc.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

For those individuals who prove their membership in the class, the damages for an individual claim are the $149 paid to RealtySouth. Those damages are automatically trebled by statute to $447.

If you have questions, you may call the claims administrator at 1-877-541-3050. You may call class counsel at 800-568-5330 or you may visit the website www.hwnn.com/realtysouthclassaction.

Five Maine residents have filed a complaint against GMAC Mortgage LLC on behalf of themselves and a class of Maine homeowners, alleging that the company systematically files false certifications that it has a right to foreclose, and false affidavits when asking courts to enter foreclosure judgments.

The suit comes after a court in Maine sanctioned GMAC for its flawed foreclosure process, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Maine District Court Judge Keith Powers, in a Sept. 24 ruling, chided GMAC for its "high volume and careless approach" to affidavit signing, Reuters reports.

The Maine residents are represented by Andrea Bopp Stark from the Molleur Law Office in Biddeford, Maine; Thomas Cox, coordinator of Maine Attorneys Saving Homes in Portland; the National Consumer Law Center and the Center for Responsible Lending.