Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Drug Safety Surveillance Program

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Humana Launch Drug Safety Surveillance Program

August 22, 2007 - MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Humana Inc. (NYSE: HUM) today announced the launch of a new Pharmacovigilance Initiative at the University's medical campus in Miami. The new program will focus on prescription drug safety -- in particular, the science of detecting and understanding adverse drug events.

"It is estimated that about 2 million people in this country experience a serious adverse drug reaction each year," said University of Miami President Donna E. Shalala. "Clearly, something in our system is not working properly, and this new program will track the problem and offer solutions based on good science and research."

The new Pharmacovigilance Initiative will be undertaken by the University of Miami-Humana Health Services Research Center, a public-private partnership established in 2005 to focus on health services and health behavior research with an emphasis on improving health outcomes for individual patients.

"Pharmacovigilance represents yet another area where the University and Humana have a unique opportunity to bridge the research gap between the bench and the bedside and give consumers a real time, transparent view into the health care system," said Jonathan Lord, M.D., Humana's Chief Innovation Officer.

Although the Center works with a number of entities today to design and produce cutting edge research on conditions like metabolic syndrome, obesity, heart disease and diabetes, the new Pharmacovigilance Initiative will be an independent pursuit aimed at protecting the health and safety of the public, supporting better clinician decision making through reporting on the comparative effectiveness of pharmaceuticals, and contributing to the ongoing dialogue in Washington around drug safety.

"Right now, the reporting of adverse drug events to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is strictly voluntary, and the recent drug recalls and stepped-up black box warnings would suggest something more needs to be done to protect patient safety," said Pascal J. Goldschmidt, M.D., senior vice president for medical affairs and dean of the Miller School of Medicine. "This new initiative between the Miller School of Medicine and Humana is the right thing to do for the patient, at the right time."

Further complicating the risks of adverse drug events, roughly 21 percent of all medications are prescribed "off label," or for uses other than what they were approved for by the FDA. Little is known about clinical and cost impacts of off-label use.

"We will be looking at a wide range of medications to track trends in side effects and potential adverse events," said William J. O'Neill, M.D., executive dean for clinical affairs and medical director of the Pharmacovigilance Initiative. "For example, we are analyzing the outcomes of 41,000 diabetics in Humana's population, including Avandia users."

Avandia is the diabetes drug that recently came under fire because of a reported increase in heart attack risk.

The Center will be appointing a multi-disciplinary Advisory Board, including a medical ethicist, to provide guidance on the clinical domains of exploration and communicating findings to the public. Beyond Avandia and several other targeted analyses, the University of Miami and Humana expect the Pharmacovigilance Initiative to begin communicating through public releases and a consumer Website a large volume of research findings in early 2008.

About Humana

Humana Inc., headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, is one of the nation's largest publicly traded health benefits companies, with approximately 11.3 million medical members. Humana offers a diversified portfolio of health insurance products and related services - through traditional and consumer-choice plans - to employer groups, government-sponsored plans, and individuals.

Humana is one of Florida's leading health benefits companies with nearly 1 million medical members statewide, and is the University of Miami's health benefits provider.

Over its 46-year history, Humana has consistently seized opportunities to meet changing customer needs. Today, the company is a leader in consumer engagement, providing guidance that leads to lower costs and a better health plan experience throughout its diversified customer portfolio.

More information regarding Humana is available to investors via the Investor Relations page of the company's Web site at
http://www.humana.com.

Contacts

Humana Corporate Communications
Mitch Lubitz, 813-732-0386
mlubitz@humana.com
or
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
Media Relations
Jeanne Antol Krull, 305-243-4853
jkrull@med.miami.edu

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Another Apple, Inc. iPhone Lawsuit

Apple, Inc. iPhone Lawsuit

It has only been two months since Apple launched its iPhone and already several lawsuits has been filed. The class action claims Apple failed to disclose to customers that the iPhone was locked to only accept AT&T Subscriber Identity Modules or SIM cards and that the unlocking code would not be provided to iPhone owners. The lawsuit also claims iPhone owners would incur substantial roaming fees for using iPhone's data features while traveling internationally. The lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the state of New York County of New York on behalf of all those who purchased an iPhone between June 29, 2007 and August 27, 2007 and where not informed of the inability to unlock their phone codes. 

One plaintiff traveled to Mexico and was charged $2,000 in international data roaming fees for using his iPhone. He tried to purchase a SIM card from a foreign wireless carrier which would allow him to utilize voice and data networks at fees substantially less than the $2,000 roaming fees charged by AT&T. However, Apple locked all iPhones so that they cannot be used with a non-AT&T SIM card. At the request of the consumer, AT&T does provide unlock codes for all other non-iPhone phones

Apple, Inc. Legal Help

If you have suffered damages in this disclosure case, please click the link below to send your Apple complaint to a lawyer who will evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.

Click here for legal help and a free evaluation of your possible case

Online Legal Marketing Ltd.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Calling Spammers Names Costs Spam Victim $2.5M

Jury Finds Spam Victim Liable for $2.5 M for Calling Senders of LUCE 'Spammers'

In a case of justice gone horribly wrong, WebGuy.net's Mark W. Mumma, ISP, spam victim and anti-spam activist, has been dealt the ultimate "low blow" by a Federal Court. The small, Oklahoma City based ISP has been ordered by a U.S. Federal Jury to pay $2.5 Million in damages to the very company that admitted sending him unsolicited e-mail in the first place.

Oklahoma City, OK (PRWEB) June 27, 2007 -- In a mind numbing decision two months ago today in case no. 05-CV-122 in the U.S. District Court's Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that Mark W. Mumma's statement that Plaintiffs, Cruise.com, Omega World Travel and Gloria Bohan "are spammers" is "untrue" in spite of the fact that Cruise.com witnesses confirmed, under oath, that they never ask a recipient's permission prior to sending them e-mail offers. The reason given by Cruise.com CEO Anthony Hamawy regarding why they don't verify an e-mail recipient's desire to receive their offers was, 'No, we have not, primarily because our competitors don't.'

"I have been battling spam for more than a decade and was very pleased when laws were passed defining stiff penalties for those who send spam," Mumma stated. "I tried to recover relief through the courts for the wasted time and loss of productivity I've suffered because of spam, but after incurring $70,000 in legal fees and seeing a $2.5 Million jury award leveled against me, I think I've had about all the 'relief' I can stand."

A little more than three years ago, Mumma set up a web site to 'out' spammers called, SUEaSpammer.com. He warned senders of Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (UCE) that he would expose anyone who sends him any such unwanted e-mail messages. He warned spammers that he would record their telephone calls and post them on the Internet. He also warned that he would post photos of the people ultimately responsible for spam messages, as well as the spam e-mails themselves. He wasn't kidding. Yet it is Mumma that has had to pay the ultimate price for spam when Cruise.com's parent company, Omega World Travel, sued him for defamation for 'calling them spammers'.

"I have tried opting out, but no matter how legitimate a company seems, virtually every time I opt out of an e-mailing that I didn't opt into to begin with, I just end up with more spam, not less," says Mumma. "Maybe if there was a significant cost involved in sending unsolicited commercial e-mail, companies would stop."

Throughout the case, Cruise.com attorneys accused Mumma of signing up for the offers in spite of Cruise.com's own evidence to the contrary. At least one of Cruise.com's attorneys has vowed to foreclose on Mumma's home in order to satisfy their judgment against him. Another has vowed to sue him when he releases, SLAPP SUIT, the documentary Mumma is self-producing about this lawsuit. Mumma's plight was featured in TIME Magazine, this past January.

"During the trial, Omega's lead attorney stressed that this case was about 'Cruise.com's good name.' Ironically, the most important time for Cruise.com to utilize their 'good name' would have been to identify their e-mail server as a 'cruise.com server' when connecting to recipient mail servers," Mumma explained. "Instead, Cruise.com failed to use its real name, announcing itself as 'FL-Broadcast.net', a domain they have never owned. A complete fabrication."

In spite of the fact that Cruise.com witnesses testified during discovery that they did not own the domain name FL-Broadcast.net, as well as confirming that Mumma had not requested the e-mails in question, Judge Brinkema advised the jury that the case was 'essentially about damages' and that she had already 'determined as a matter of law that calling an entity a spammer is a defamatory statement.' This finding has been followed by Judge Brinkema referring to the e-mails Cruise sent as 'spam' herself during a May 11 hearing.

"I originally claimed that Cruise.com had broken the law because I genuinely believed that 'HELO forgery' was illegal under the provisions of The CAN-SPAM Act," Mumma contends. "Now, as long as some contact info is present in the e-mail itself, I know header forgery is 'excusable'."

"I expected justice to be done," says Mumma. "I never imagined I would be victimized by the courts, saddled with tens of thousands in attorney fees, a $2.5 Million judgment and the possible loss of my home. What makes it all the more frustrating is the Plaintiffs corroborated every 'true, yet somehow still defamatory' thing I have ever said about them. Cruise admitted that an unknown Comcast Cable Internet subscriber in Illinois signed up my e-mail address. They further admitted that they have no system in place to prevent anyone from signing up someone else's e-mail address, so, basically 'Legal Unsolicited Commercial E-mail' or 'LUCE' happens because someone signs you up, and irresponsible e-mail marketers don't bother to check and see if the sign-up is legitimate or not."

As a result of a hearing June 1st, Omega World Travel now faces the choice of accepting a lowered damage award of $330,000.00 or having a new trial. Omega has only until the end of the week to file their decision with the court.

"Once a judgment is entered, I will have thirty days to file an appeal; however, without a little help from other weary and tired e-mail users, there is no way I can afford it. This lawsuit has wiped me out financially. If possible, I want to try to get a grass roots effort organized to take the fight back to spammers everywhere. If other Internet users want me to keep fighting the good fight, I'll do it. Appealing the decision in my case is important to get the war on spam back on track. Proactively going after spam and LUCE offenders alike needs to continue. I refuse to just lie down and die."

"I came very close to 'giving up' several times," Mumma confesses. "However, I was inspired by the movies Facing the Giants and Maxed Out to make my own documentary about this ridiculous lawsuit."

"Cruise.com appears to owe their jury victory to their successful re-definition of the term 'unsolicited e-mail'. In Cruise.com's version, if someone signs you up, even if it is someone you do not know and have not authorized to subscribe you to e-mail lists of any kind, the courts will back them, because the e-mails were solicited by 'someone'," Mumma added. "I thought that was the very definition of 'Unsolicited e-mail'; when someone besides the recipient adds the recipient to an e-mail list."

Cruise.com is a registered trademark of Omega World Travel, Inc.

MummaGraphics, Inc., founded in 1993, is a provider of Internet web hosting and web site design services and, until recently, has been directing its energies to curbing unwanted junk e-mail, a/k/a spam. MummaGraphics began suing spammers in August 2004, but may soon retire as a spam fighter.

Original PRWeb Release || Hi-Res Broadcast Quality Video


Press Contact: Mark W. Mumma
Company Name: MummaGraphics, Inc.
Phone: 310-691-5800
Website:
http://www.2bucksamonth.org/

Workers Who Bring Asbestos Home

Bergman & Frockt: Families of Workers Who Bring Asbestos Home On Work Clothes May Now File Their Own Claims Against the Worker's Employer

The Washington State Court of Appeals establishes a precedent that may finally allow thousands of Puget Sound family members to seek their own relief

SEATTLE, Aug. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- A Washington State Court of Appeals decision paved the way for claims to be filed on behalf of individuals exposed to deadly asbestos fibers brought into the home by thousands of Washington workers. The decision overturned a lower court ruling and set a precedent that could allow hundreds of family members and others living in the same home to file their own claims.

"For decades, people working with or around asbestos products brought deadly fibers home on their clothing, thereby exposing their families to cancerous materials," explains Seattle attorney Matthew Bergman. "Until now it has been very difficult for individuals who develop asbestos-related diseases as a result of household exposures to pursue a claim against the employer, even though the hazards of asbestos were well documented by the early 1950s. This ruling gives new hope to family members suffering from diseases caused by asbestos exposure."

"There is not a day that goes by that I don't wish I could go back and change things," says Lawrence Rochon, whose wife Adeline was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2004 and passed away soon after. "My wife was a wonderful woman who took pride in caring for her family. She didn't deserve to die in such a horrible way."

Adeline Rochon was a mother of seven who dutifully fulfilled the household chores during her 49-year marriage to Lawrence Rochon. For more than 10 years, Lawrence Rochon worked with and around asbestos containing products while employed at the Scott Paper Mill in Everett. Every night he came home, changed out of his work clothes and Adeline washed them regularly. That simple task may have caused the mesothelioma that eventually took her life.

Kimberly Clark Corporation acquired the Scott Paper Company, including its mill in Everett, in 1996, thereby assuming its legal responsibilities. Kimberly Clark had successfully argued in Snohomish County Superior Court that it had no duty of care to Mrs. Rochon because the potential for harm was not foreseeable. The Washington State Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's ruling. Judge J. Cox wrote in the decision, "Kimberly Clark had a duty to prevent injury from an unreasonable risk of harm it had itself created."

Asbestos was used for decades in the shipbuilding, aluminum and wood products industries. These industries employed hundreds of thousands of workers throughout Washington State from the 1940s through the 1970s. As a result, Washington now has the second highest rate of asbestos related cancer in the nation.

Up to the late 1970s, asbestos was also a common ingredient in joint compounds and ceiling and wall textures, products widely used in commercial and residential construction as well as home remodeling projects.

Asbestos exposure has been linked to several deadly diseases, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of chest lining that may take as long as 15-40 years to manifest. Once diagnosed, mesothelioma patients often have only months to live.

About Bergman & Frockt
Bergman & Frockt is a Seattle-based law firm that focuses on representing individuals and families who have been harmed by more powerful interests. The firm built its reputation on serious asbestos diseases claims and is expanding its practice to benzene and predatory lending cases. Matthew Bergman is the firm's managing partner and one of seven lawyers across the nation who recently negotiated a $4 billion national settlement with the Halliburton Corporation for its asbestos liabilities, approximately $30 million of which went to Bergman & Frock clients residing primarily in the Pacific Northwest. Bergman also served on the committee that negotiated a $5.1 billion bankruptcy settlement with Owens Corning that will result in over $50 million in payments to Pacific Northwest victims.

    CONTACTS:
    Matthew Bergman
    Bergman & Frockt
    matt@bergmanlegal.com
    (206) 200-2606

    Kevin Bush
    Firmani + Associates, Inc.
    (206) 443-9357
    Kevin@firmani.com

Friday, August 24, 2007

Mesothelioma Clinical Trial Tests Experimental Mesothelioma Treatment

Mesothelioma Clinical Trial in New York City Tests Experimental Mesothelioma Treatment

Researchers are testing Cisplatin, Pemetrexed, and Bevacizumab to see if the new drug combination is more effective against malignant mesothelioma

New York, NY (PRWEB) August 15, 2007 -- Researchers at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital are currently conducting a mesothelioma clinical trial in New York City to determine if a new, experimental mesothelioma treatment is effective and safe. Patients enrolled in this study will be administered three therapeutic drugs--Cisplatin, Pemetrexed, and Bevacizumab-which will be used together to see if this new drug combination constitutes a more effective form of mesothelioma treatment than other standard therapies.

To be eligible for this mesothelioma clinical trial in New York City, prospective patients must not have undergone prior chemotherapy for the treatment of mesothelioma or have been treated with any of the drugs under the consideration of this study. Patients must also be willing to take B12 vitamin and folic acid supplements to participate in this mesothelioma clinical trial. New York City is the home of top cancer institutions such as Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. To learn more about this hospital and its cancer treatments, please click on the following link:
http://www.nyp.org/

To lean more about this clinical trial that tests this new experimental mesothelioma treatment of Cisplatin, Pemetrexed, and Bevacizumab, please click on the following link:
www.centerwatch.com/patient/studies/stu92726.html

Malignant mesothelioma is a terminal form of cancer that arises primarily in the lining of the lungs and the abdomen; it is caused by the inhalation of asbestos. Generally speaking, mesothelioma takes at least fifteen years for symptoms to manifest themselves after a person's initial contact with asbestos. Even if a person is only exposed to asbestos for a short period of time, it is possible for them to develop mesothelioma in later life. Because asbestos fibers are microscopic, exposure can occur without an individual being aware of it.

Mesothelioma attorneys at Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, have prosecuted mesothelioma claims in New York City, and throughout New York and New Jersey, for more than twenty-five years. LPK has law offices in New York City and Lawrenceville, New Jersey and directly represents victims of asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma.

Press Contact: Jay Berkowitz
Company Name: CEPAC
Phone: 561-716-1334
Website:
http://www.nynjmesothelioma.com/

Sunday, August 19, 2007

New Countrywide Financial Lawsuit

Countrywide Financial Corporation Lawsuit
Countrywide Financial Corp. NYSE: CFC has been accused of securities fraud. If you are a current or former employee or are a member of any of Countrywide Financial Corp. investment plans or profit sharing retirement plans you may be included in this possible Countrywide Financial Corp. 401K or Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action. If you purchased or held Countrywide Financial Corp. stock in one of those plans during the periods October 24, 2006 to August 9, 2007, you may have a claim.

Under ERISA, Countrywide Financial Corp. employees can file a lawsuit against the company for putting stock options at risk. Countrywide Financial Corp. employees have a claim if they can prove their employer violated its fiduciary duty to its employees. Fiduciary duty refers to a company's responsibility to the people who invest in it. If an employer puts the company's interest ahead of the investors', it has broken its fiduciary duty. A fiduciary is a person that exercises discretion over the management of plan assets or exercises discretionary control over the administration of the plan.

ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for pension and health plans set up by private businesses. ERISA was designed to protect people who participate in employee benefit plans, including employees with stock options in a company. Stock options are a form of compensation in which employees are given the opportunity to purchase shares of the company stock at a certain price.

Register your Countrywide Financial Corp. 401K / ERISA Complaint
If you have suffered from Countrywide Financial Corp. 401K plan losses, you may qualify for damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible Countrywide Financial Corp. ERISA class action lawsuit. Please click the link below to submit your complaint and we will have a lawyer review your ERISA complaint.

Click here for legal help and a free evaluation of your possible case

New Law Suit Targets Nokia Batteries

Nokia Batteries - New Law Suits
Nokia-branded BL-5C batteries manufactured by Matsushita Battery Industrial Co. Ltd. of Japan between December 2005 and November 2006 have been recalled. Nokia has identified that in very rare cases the affected batteries in a cel phone could potentially experience over heating initiated by a short circuit while charging, causing the battery to dislodge. This advisory applies to 46 million cell phone batteries manufactured by Matsushita. So far, there have been approximately 100 incidents of over phone battery heating reported globally.


Nokia Battery Legal Help
If you have suffered damages in this defective mobile phone battery case, please click the link below to send your Nokia complaint to a lawyer who will evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.

Click here for legal help and a free evaluation of your possible case

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Novartis AG Prexige (lumiracoxib) - New Law Suit

New Law Suits

Novartis AG Prexige (lumiracoxib)
Australia's drugs watchdog had ordered the recall of the anti-inflammatory medication Prexige after it was linked to two deaths. Technically called lumiracoxib, Prexige is produced by the Switzerland-based company Novartis AG, which said it had contacted health authorities in 50 countries where the drug is sold about the withdrawal. The move followed a review of eight cases where people suffered severe liver damage after using the Prexige drug. Two of those people died and another two required liver transplants. Prexige is taken by about 60,000 people in Australia and is prescribed for osteoarthritis, post-operative pain, pain related to dental procedures and painful menstruation. The TGA has recommended people taking lumiracoxib seek an alternative medication and have liver function blood tests. Prexige is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, technically called a Cox-2 inhibitor. Another Cox-2 inhibitor, Vioxx or Rofecoxib, was voluntarily recalled by manufacturer Merck in 2004 due to adverse health conditions in patients taking it.

Novartis AG Prexige Legal Help
If you or a loved one has suffered liver damage in this Novartis AG lumiracoxib case, please click the link below to send your complaint to a lawyer who will evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.

Click here for legal help and a free evaluation of your possible case

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against United States Postal Service

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against United States Postal Service

United States Postal Service
A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against the federal government agency for violating terms of the Privacy Act and distributing contact information of its employees to marketing partners. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all employees and claims the United States Postal Service (USPS) allowed private businesses, as part of its Strategic Business Initiatives plan, to access and utilize its 'employee master file' that contains private information including home addresses of all career and non-career, full and part-time employees.

The complaint states the business initiatives plan allows private corporations to submit bids for co-branding agreements. Under these agreements the USPS logo is branded on various marketing materials and sent to the private residences of USPS employees.


United States Postal Service Legal Help
If you have suffered damages in this information breach case, please click the link below to send your USPS complaint to a lawyer who will evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.

Click here for legal help and a free evaluation of your possible case

Luminent Mortgage Capital Accused Of Securities Fraud

Luminent Mortgage Capital Accused Of Securities Fraud

Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc.
Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. NYSE: LUM has been accused of securities fraud. If you are a current or former employee or are a member of any of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. investment plans or profit sharing retirement plans you may be included in this possible Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. 401K or Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action. If you purchased or held Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. stock in one of those plans during the periods July 24, 2007 to August 6, 2007, you may have a claim.

Under ERISA, Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. employees can file a lawsuit against the company for putting stock options at risk. Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. employees have a claim if they can prove their employer violated its fiduciary duty to its employees. Fiduciary duty refers to a company's responsibility to the people who invest in it. If an employer puts the company's interest ahead of the investors', it has broken its fiduciary duty. A fiduciary is a person that exercises discretion over the management of plan assets or exercises discretionary control over the administration of the plan.

ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for pension and health plans set up by private businesses. ERISA was designed to protect people who participate in employee benefit plans, including employees with stock options in a company. Stock options are a form of compensation in which employees are given the opportunity to purchase shares of the company stock at a certain price.

Register your Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. 401K / ERISA Complaint
If you have suffered from Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. 401K plan losses, you may qualify for damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. ERISA class action lawsuit. Please click the link below to submit your complaint and we will have a lawyer review your ERISA complaint.


Click here for legal help and a free evaluation of your possible case


Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. NYSE: LUM

Company: Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc.
Ticker Symbol: NYSE: LUM
Class Period:: July 24, 2007 to August 6, 2007
Date Filed: Aug-08-07
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct-08-07
Court: Northern District, CA
Allegations:

A class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. ("Luminent" or the "Company") (NYSE:LUM) securities between July 24, 2007 and August 6, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases and SEC filings regarding Luminent's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Luminent failed to disclose: (i) the Company was not sufficiently liquid; (ii) the Company's financial statements and reports were not prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and (iii) that defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that the Company had ample liquidity and that the dividend payments were secure. As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On August 6, 2007, however, defendants shocked the market when they announced that the Company was cancelling the payment of its dividend. In response to the announcement, Luminent's share price dropped to a low of $3.75 on August 6, 2007 before trading was halted. It then opened on August 7, 2007 at $0.50, representing a drop of over 85%.

If you acquired the securities of the defendants during the Class Period you may, no later than the Lead Plaintiff Deadline shown above, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice. You may also choose to remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff must meet certain requirements.

Register your Securities Complaint

If you have suffered from financial losses, you may qualify for damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible class action lawsuit. Please click the link below to submit your complaint for a free evaluation.

Lawsuit Filed Against Service Contractor DTI Associates Inc.

Lawsuit Filed Against Service Contractor DTI Associates Inc.

DTI Associates Inc.
A lawsuit has been filed and is seeking class action status against the service contractor for allegedly violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court in Alexandria, VA, and alleges DTI violated USERRA by discharging Navy reservists after they returned home from military service. The former employees had been mobilized in support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom.

DTI provides engineering, technology and professional services as a contractor to government customers, including the US Navy. In January 2006, the Navy awarded DTI a new, five-year, $49 million contract.


Legal Help
If you have suffered damages in a similar USERRA violations case, please click the link below to send your complaint to a lawyer who will evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.

Click here for legal help and a free evaluation of your possible case

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against The City of Springfield, MA

New Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against The City of Springfield, MA

Springfield, MA
A class action lawsuit has been filed against they city alleging racial and ethical employee discrimination. The lawsuit was filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and claims the city of Springfield kept employee from good pay and promotions because of their race and ethnicity.

Springfield has 29 department heads, but only four are minorities.Over 30 years ago, there were two minority department heads and the lawsuit claims the city has not done enough to reach affirmative action goals.


Legal Help
If you have suffered damages in a similar employee racial discrimination case, please click the link below to send your complaint to a lawyer who will evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.

Click here for legal help and a free evaluation of your possible case
 

Law Web Site Launch Explosion

Texas Explosion Law Web Site Launch

Texas Explosion lawyers, Williams Kherkher, launch an explosion resource website to discuss the legal issues involved in explosion accidents.

Houston, TX (PRWEB) August 9, 2007 -- In reaction to a long-standing legal issue within the realm of personal injury law, the law firm of Williams Kherkher, based in Houston, Texas, has launched Web site specifically meant to provide information and insight into the issues that surround explosions.

The Web site's URL is Texas Explosion Lawyer, and it provides the following information to those who choose to visit:
1.    Information regarding Texas explosion legal issues;
2.    Information regarding the law firm of Williams Kherkher;
3.    Suggestions on how to proceed if a person has suffered as a result of an explosion;
4.    Ways to contact the Texas explosion lawyers at Williams Kherkher.

Williams Kherkher is led by Attorneys John Eddy Williams and Steve Kherkerk, and has 26 attorneys and over 120 support staff on hand. The firm has represented victims of explosions since 1983. Explosions have long been a part of the American industrial economy, and their effects can be quite devastating at times. Williams Kherkher is ready to offer free initial consultations to those who have suffered harm as a result of an explosion, and our attorneys will make recommendations to those with whom we speak regarding the most advisable course of action to take.

For example, Williams Kherkher's new Texas explosion Web site is intended to help those who have suffered as a result of an explosion such as the one that occurred in Dallas in July of 2007, as it is our perspective that when enduring such an event, many of those with whom we've spoken over the years do not know where to turn for help.
Williams Kherkher is a full-service litigation law firm in Houston, Texas, and the firm's attorneys handle litigation matters of all types relating to injuries stemming from such potential causes as explosions, defective products and negligence.

Press Contact: Joe Devine
Company Name: Williams Kherkher
Phone: 5123947234
Website:
www.texasexplosionlawyers.com

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Countrywide Suite Says Black Customers Charged More

Homepage » New Law Suits

Countrywide Home Loans Inc.

A federal lawsuit has been filed and is seeking class action status against the nation's largest home lender for allegedly charging African American borrowers more for subprime mortgages. The lawsuit was filed in US Court in Boston and contends Countrywide violated federal housing discrimination laws by requiring black homeowners to pay higher fees to the network of agents that generate Countrywide's new customers. 

The lawsuit claims Countrywide and its subprime subsidiary, Full Spectrum Lending Inc., charged black customers more for subprime mortgages than it charged white borrowers in similar financial situations. 

Countrywide Home Loans Inc. Legal Help

If you have suffered damages in this racial discrimination case, please click the link below to send your Countrywide Home Loans complaint to a lawyer who will evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.

Click here for legal help and a free evaluation of your possible case


Online Legal Marketing Ltd.
23-1917 West 4th Ave. Vancouver BC Canada V6J 1M7

© 2001-2007 Online Legal Marketing Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Free Credit Reports

Your Access to Free Credit Reports

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion - to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months. The FCRA promotes the accuracy and privacy of information in the files of the nation's consumer reporting companies. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, enforces the FCRA with respect to consumer reporting companies.

A credit report includes information on where you live, how you pay your bills, and whether you've been sued, arrested, or filed for bankruptcy. Nationwide consumer reporting companies sell the information in your report to creditors, insurers, employers, and other businesses that use it to evaluate your applications for credit, insurance, employment, or renting a home.

Here are the details about your rights under the FCRA and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions (FACT) Act, which established the free annual credit report program.

Q: How do I order my free report?


A: The three nationwide consumer reporting companies have set up a central website, a toll-free telephone number, and a mailing address through which you can order your free annual report.

To order, visit annualcreditreport.com, call 1-877-322-8228, or complete the Annual Credit Report Request Form and mail it to: Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281. The form is on the back of this brochure; or you can print it from ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/credit. Do not contact the three nationwide consumer reporting companies individually. They are providing free annual credit reports only through annualcreditreport.com, 1-877-322-8228, and Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281.

You may order your reports from each of the three nationwide consumer reporting companies at the same time, or you can order your report from each of the companies one at a time. The law allows you to order one free copy of your report from each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies every 12 months.
A Warning About "Imposter" Websites

Only one website is authorized to fill orders for the free annual credit report you are entitled to under law - annualcreditreport.com. Other websites that claim to offer "free credit reports," "free credit scores," or "free credit monitoring" are not part of the legally mandated free annual credit report program. In some cases, the "free" product comes with strings attached. For example, some sites sign you up for a supposedly "free" service that converts to one you have to pay for after a trial period. If you don't cancel during the trial period, you may be unwittingly agreeing to let the company start charging fees to your credit card.

Some "imposter" sites use terms like "free report" in their names; others have URLs that purposely misspell annualcreditreport.com in the hope that you will mistype the name of the official site. Some of these "imposter" sites direct you to other sites that try to sell you something or collect your personal information.

annualcreditreport.com and the nationwide consumer reporting companies will not send you an email asking for your personal information. If you get an email, see a pop-up ad, or get a phone call from someone claiming to be from annualcreditreport.com or any of the three nationwide consumer reporting companies, do not reply or click on any link in the message. It's probably a scam. Forward any such email to the FTC at spam@uce.gov.

Q: What information do I need to provide to get my free report?

A: You need to provide your name, address, Social Security number, and date of birth. If you have moved in the last two years, you may have to provide your previous address. To maintain the security of your file, each nationwide consumer reporting company may ask you for some information that only you would know, like the amount of your monthly mortgage payment. Each company may ask you for different information because the information each has in your file may come from different sources.

Q: Why do I want a copy of my credit report?

A: Your credit report has information that affects whether you can get a loan - and how much you will have to pay to borrow money. You want a copy of your credit report to:

    * make sure the information is accurate, complete, and up-to-date before you apply for a loan for a major purchase like a house or car, buy insurance, or apply for a job.
    * help guard against identity theft. That's when someone uses your personal information - like your name, your Social Security number, or your credit card number - to commit fraud. Identity thieves may use your information to open a new credit card account in your name. Then, when they don't pay the bills, the delinquent account is reported on your credit report. Inaccurate information like that could affect your ability to get credit, insurance, or even a job.

Q: How long does it take to get my report after I order it?

A: If you request your report online at annualcreditreport.com, you should be able to access it immediately. If you order your report by calling toll-free 1-877-322-8228, your report will be processed and mailed to you within 15 days. If you order your report by mail using the Annual Credit Report Request Form, your request will be processed and mailed to you within 15 days of receipt.

Whether you order your report online, by phone, or by mail, it may take longer to receive your report if the nationwide consumer reporting company needs more information to verify your identity.

There also may be times when the nationwide consumer reporting companies receive a high volume of requests for credit reports. If that happens, you may be asked to re-submit your request. Or, you may be told that your report will be mailed to you sometime after 15 days from your request. If either of these events occurs, the nationwide consumer reporting companies will let you know.

Q: Are there any other situations where I might be eligible for a free report?

A: Under federal law, you're entitled to a free report if a company takes adverse action against you such as denying your application for credit, insurance, or employment and you ask for your report within 60 days of receiving notice of the action. The notice will give you the name, address, and phone number of the consumer reporting company. You're also entitled to one free report a year if you're unemployed and plan to look for a job within 60 days; if you're on welfare; or if your report is inaccurate because of fraud, including identity theft. Otherwise, a consumer reporting company may charge you up to $9.50 for another copy of your report within a 12-month period.

To buy a copy of your report, contact:

    * Equifax: 800-685-1111; www.equifax.com
    * Experian: 888-EXPERIAN (888-397-3742); www.experian.com
    * Trans Union: 800-916-8800; www.transunion.com

Under state law, consumers in Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont already have free access to their credit reports.

Q: Should I order a report from each of the three nationwide consumer reporting companies?

A: It's up to you. Because nationwide consumer reporting companies get their information from different sources, the information in your report from one company may not reflect all, or the same, information in your reports from the other two companies. That's not to say that the information in any of your reports is necessarily inaccurate; it just may be different.

Q: Should I order my reports from all three of the nationwide consumer reporting companies at the same time?

A: You may order one, two, or all three reports at the same time, or you may stagger your requests. It's your choice. Some financial advisors say staggering your requests during a 12-month period may be a good way to keep an eye on the accuracy and completeness of the information in your reports.

Q: What if I find errors - either inaccuracies or incomplete information - in my credit report?

A: Under the FCRA, both the consumer reporting company and the information provider (that is, the person, company, or organization that provides information about you to a consumer reporting company) are responsible for correcting inaccurate or incomplete information in your report. To take full advantage of your rights under this law, contact the consumer reporting company and the information provider.

   1. Tell the consumer reporting company, in writing, what information you think is inaccurate.
      Consumer reporting companies must investigate the items in question - usually within 30 days - unless they consider your dispute frivolous. They also must forward all the relevant data you provide about the inaccuracy to the organization that provided the information. After the information provider receives notice of a dispute from the consumer reporting company, it must investigate, review the relevant information, and report the results back to the consumer reporting company. If the information provider finds the disputed information is inaccurate, it must notify all three nationwide consumer reporting companies so they can correct the information in your file.

      When the investigation is complete, the consumer reporting company must give you the written results and a free copy of your report if the dispute results in a change. (This free report does not count as your annual free report under the FACT Act.) If an item is changed or deleted, the consumer reporting company cannot put the disputed information back in your file unless the information provider verifies that it is accurate and complete. The consumer reporting company also must send you written notice that includes the name, address, and phone number of the information provider.

   2. Tell the creditor or other information provider in writing that you dispute an item. Many providers specify an address for disputes. If the provider reports the item to a consumer reporting company, it must include a notice of your dispute. And if you are correct - that is, if the information is found to be inaccurate - the information provider may not report it again.

Q: What can I do if the consumer reporting company or information provider won't correct the information I dispute?

A: If an investigation doesn't resolve your dispute with the consumer reporting company, you can ask that a statement of the dispute be included in your file and in future reports. You also can ask the consumer reporting company to provide your statement to anyone who received a copy of your report in the recent past. You can expect to pay a fee for this service.
If you tell the information provider that you dispute an item, a notice of your dispute must be included any time the information provider reports the item to a consumer reporting company.

Q: How long can a consumer reporting company report negative information?

A: A consumer reporting company can report most accurate negative information for seven years and bankruptcy information for 10 years. There is no time limit on reporting information about criminal convictions; information reported in response to your application for a job that pays more than $75,000 a year; and information reported because you've applied for more than $150,000 worth of credit or life insurance. Information about a lawsuit or an unpaid judgment against you can be reported for seven years or until the statute of limitations runs out, whichever is longer.
Q: Can anyone else can get a copy of my credit report?

A: The FCRA specifies who can access your credit report. Creditors, insurers, employers, and other businesses that use the information in your report to evaluate your applications for credit, insurance, employment, or renting a home are among those that have a legal right to access your report.

Q: Can my employer get my credit report?

A: Your employer can get a copy of your credit report only if you agree. A consumer reporting company may not provide information about you to your employer, or to a prospective employer, without your written consent.

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit www.ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

Monday, August 06, 2007

New Law Suits: Apple iPhone and AT&T

New Law Suits: Apple iPhone and AT&T
It has been only a month since Apple launched its iPhone and already a lawsuit has been filed regarding its battery life. The class action claims Apple and AT&T unfairly steered its user base towards buying frequent and expensive iPhone battery replacements via a non-replaceable battery. The lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of all purchasers of the new iPhone; more than 500,000 units were sold in the first week of sales.

The iPhone is a sealed unit with its lithium-ion battery soldered on the inside of the device so that it cannot be changed by the owner. The lawsuit claims the enclosed battery can only be charged approximately 300 times before it will be in need of a replacement. Customers must pay a $79 fee to have the iPhone battery replaced and are also charged $29 to rent a replacement phone to use during the iPhones repair.

Legal Help
If you have suffered damages in a similar case, please click the link below to send your complaint to a lawyer who will evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.

Click here for legal help and a free
evaluation of your possible case

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Legal Marketing Ltd.
23-1917 West 4th Ave. Vancouver BC Canada V6J 1M7

© 2001-2007 Online Legal Marketing Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, August 05, 2007











Homepage » New Law Suits

Health Management Associates, Inc.

Health Management Associates, Inc. NYSE: HMA has been
accused of securities fraud. If you are a current or former employee or are a member of any of Health Management Associates, Inc. investment plans or profit sharing retirement plans you may be included in this possible Health Management Associates, Inc. 401K or Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action. If you purchased or held Health
Management Associates, Inc. stock in one of those plans during the periods January 17, 2007 to July 30, 2007, you may have a claim.

Under ERISA, Health Management Associates, Inc. employees can file a lawsuit against the company for putting stock options at risk. Health Management Associates, Inc. employees have a claim if they can prove their employer violated its fiduciary duty to its employees. Fiduciary duty refers to a company’s responsibility to the people who invest in it. If an employer puts the company’s interest ahead of the investors’, it has broken its fiduciary duty. A fiduciary is a person that exercises discretion over the management of plan assets or exercises discretionary control over the administration of the plan.

ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for pension and health plans set up by private businesses. ERISA was designed to protect people who participate in employee benefit plans, including employees with stock options in a company. Stock options are a form of compensation in which employees are given the opportunity to purchase shares of the company stock at a certain price.

Register your Health Management Associates, Inc. 401K / ERISA Complaint

If you have suffered from Health Management Associates, Inc.
401K plan losses, you may qualify for damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible Health Management Associates, Inc. ERISA class action lawsuit. Please click the link below to submit your complaint and we will have a lawyer review your ERISA complaint.


Online Legal Marketing Ltd.
23-1917 West 4th Ave.
Vancouver BC Canada V6J 1M7








© 2001-2007 Online Legal Marketing Ltd. All Rights
Reserved.


Friday, August 03, 2007

Fisher-Price Toxic Lead Paint Health Hazard

Homepage » New Law Suits

Fisher-Price

The CPSC, in cooperation with Fisher-Price Inc., announced a voluntary recall of about 967,000 Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer, and other children's toys. Surface paints on the toys could contain excessive levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. The recalled products involve various figures and toys that were manufactured between April 19, 2007 and July 6, 2007 and were sold alone or as part of sets. The model names and product numbers for the recalled toys, which are all marked with "Fisher-Price," list can be seen in the website. The toys may have a date code between 109-7LF and 187-7LF marked on the product or packaging. They were sold at retail stores nationwide from May 2007 through August 2007.

The toys, including Big Bird, Elmo and Dora the Explorer figurines, were pulled from shelves because the paint, applied in China, contains hazardous levels of lead. Toys "R" Us was notified of the recall at the end of July, 2007, allowing it to stop shipping the toys from its warehouse and pull items from shelves days ago. The chain carried 30 of the 83 types of toys recalled and pulled 300,000 pieces nationwide. Target and Wal-Mart both released statements saying they were removing the products from thier store shelves.

Fisher-Price Legal Help

If you or a loved one has suffered damages in this lead toys case, please click the link below to send your Fisher-Price complaint to a lawyer who will evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.

Online Legal Marketing Ltd.
23-1917 West 4th Ave. Vancouver BC Canada V6J 1M7
© 2001-2007 Online Legal Marketing Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
lawyers | law | legal | directory