After eight years at battle in the courtroom between lawyers and Coca-Cola Co., a federal judge awarded more than $31.5 million to the attorneys who claim the powerhouse inflated revenue figures to boost stock prices. Deducted from the total win, which was $137.5 million, U.S. District Court Judge Willis B. Hunt declared in his order that “class counsel were clearly not motivated entirely by notions of clarity and a pursuit of justice for its own sake.”

The securities fraud suit was originally settled last summer with Coke agreeing to pay shareholders who bought stock with them between Oct. 21, 1999 and March 6, 2000, or who sold Coke stock between Dec. 6, 2000, and April 6, 2000, an estimated 53 cents a share, stated the settlement notice published in July.

Class counsel Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins whill share a percentage of the fees with co-counsel from Atlanta class action boutique Chitwood Harley Harnes. Two other plaintiff firms also will share in the fees, Birmingham, Ala-based Whatley Drake & Kallas and California firm Gergosian & Gralewski.

Popularity: 1% [?]

After Lehman Brothers Holding Co. filed for bankruptcy, lawsuits have been flying. One in particular is in the heart of Silicon Valley, California’s San Mateo County. Suing execs and accountants for $150 million in losses, Lehman Bros. is in for a bumpy ride.

Filed Thursday, individual execs such as chief executive officer Richard Fuld and Ernst & Young, the firm’s accountants and others were named in the suit. Accusing Fuld and others of fraud, the lawsuit claims that the team allegedly made it appear publicly that the company was financially strong while in reality they were “scrambling to save it from collapse.”

The suit is asking for a return of exec’s bonuses to repay for damages suffered by the county’s schools, hospitals, transit district and individual cities. Weil Gotshal & Manges in New York are representing Lehman’s bankruptcy case and have not commented on this story.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Talk about a Lifetime television movie waiting to happen…in a small town in Marshall, N.C., Rebecca Willis, then 56, was ganged up on by her fellow townies at Marshall Depot community center for a little bit of dirty dancing. Oh, boy! Court documents reveal that she was accused of “gyranting and simulating sexual intercourse with her partner” while wearing a skirt so short it exposed her undies. However, according to Willis, the dance style was “exuberant and flamboyant” but not obscene.

Although it was eight years ago when her Scarlett Letter was placed on her sweater, metaphorically speaking, Willis finally landed a settlement of $275,000 for the whole ordeal.

Still…the town states they did nothing wrong and believes that if the case went to court, they would have won, said attorney Larry Leake. And while she is still not allowed at the community center, the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation got her enough big bucks to find some hot vacation spots to hang instead.

“I’m very happy with this settlement,” says Willis, “and relieved that the lawsuit is finally over.”

Popularity: 4% [?]

After former court reporter, Lisa Foster, was fired, she fought back and filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. Working for Creek County District Judge Donald Thompson who was sentenced to prison after being convicted of indecent exposure, like his secretary who filed a suit, Foster claimed that Thompson fired her because she had reported his behavior to the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints. Referring to his conduct as “utterly intolerable in a civilized community,” Thompson was accused of “using a penis pump while presiding over trials,” stated Law.com.

Yes, you heard it right…a penis pump.

Convicted by a Creek County jury in June 2006, the judge was sentenced to four consecutive one-year prison terms. He was also fined $40,000. And after serving 20 months, he was released but had to register as a sex offender. Meanwhile, Foster settled her case for $170,000.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Trying to score an extra buck by handing in false reports to the government will only end up costing more in the end. Take it from the Boston-based McCourt Construction Co. Inc. Ordered to pay three years probation and a $500,000 fine after working on Boston’s Central Artery/Tunnel Project a.k.a “Big Dig,” the U.S. Court for the District of Massachusetts slammed them!

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts claimed that McCourt Construction and two of the company’s billing managers overbilled the project by falsely categorizing trade workers, for example, listing ironworkers as journeymen.

Accused of submitting these false statements to the government about the project, not only were they fined but they are ordered to three years probation. Boo-ya!

Popularity: 3% [?]

The California Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) has a “suspected child abusers” list and a federal appeals court held that it violates consitutional due process protections because those identified are given no fair opportunity to challenge the claims and get off the list.

Collecting information from police reports and child welfare organizations, state law requires the results of inquiries be reported to the state if reports are substantiated or “inconclusive” and/or if determined to be “unfounded” reports. According to Judge Jay Bybee, these reports are then included on the CACI suspect list and made available to state agencies and law enforcement for investigations and for employment checks, and to out-of-state agencies checking on prospective foster care or adoptive parents.

The list attracted attention in the Humphries v. County of Los Angeles case. Craig and Wendy Humphries, accused of abuse by their 15-year-old daughter, were arrested and although a doctor confirmed the charges were false and the state dismissed the criminal case, finding them “factually innocent” of the charges, they were still added on the CACI list.

Popularity: 4% [?]

In September 2005, the Authors Guild had sued Google! Yep, the Guild took on Google because the Internet God struck deals with major university libraries to scan and copy millions of books in their collections. While some bolder books were in the public domain, millions of others were still under copyright protection.

According to past president of the Guild, Nick Taylor, “Google’s scanning is a plain and brazen violation of copyright law.”

And in response to Google’s explanation, which was that digitizing of these books represents a “fair use” of the material, new Guild prez, Roy Blount Jr. responded, “The hell you say!”

“Of such disagreements, lawsuits are made.”

The Authors Guild proposed this back in May 2006:

“While we don’t approve of your unauthorized scanning of our books and displaying snippets for profit, if you’re willing to do something far more ambitious and useful, and you’re willing to cut authors in for their fair share, then it would be our pleasure to work with you.”

Well, after back and forth chitter-chatter, Roy Blount Jr. reports, “Our proposal found a receptive audience at Google and at Association of American Publishers and the several publishing houses that had filed a separate lawsuit in October 2005 against Google. Reaching final agreement turned out to be not so simple, but today, after nearly two and a half years of negotiations, we’re joining with Google and the AAP and those publishers to announce the settlement of Authors Guild v. Google.

“The settlement, which must be approved by a federal judge before it takes effect, includes money for now and the prospect of money for later. There’ll be at least $45 million for authors and publishers whose in-copyright books and other copyrighted texts have been scanned without permission.”

Popularity: 2% [?]

Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers has a point to make when it comes to the law. Recently, Chambers filed suit against God, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the “death, destruction, and terrorisation” caused by God. The lawsuit was filed last year. According to Chambers, God had “threatened him and the people of Nebraska and millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.”

However, US Judge Marlon Polk shot down the God suit because the defendant lacks an address, legal papers and most likely wouldn’t be showing up to court anytime soon.

“Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice,” Judge Polk wrote in his ruling.

Chambers motives are to prove that “anyone can sue anyone else, even God.” That being said, he is currently deciding on whether or not to appeal.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Taking a stand in the workplace are employees as lawsuits keep popping up, protecting their rights. As stated in most employment agreements, sick leave is a must and while not everyone can claim it, those folks with a doctor’s note of some sort and a “real” injury have first dibs. However, how much information does an employer need to give their two thumbs up?

Fearing fake illnesses and with our economy falling fast, employers are weary of paying for sick leave. There is no room for the fakers. Still, the law is in question regarding how much an employer is permitted to know about their injured employee. And this is precisely why lawsuits regarding sick leave are rising high. Recently, a suit against the retail chain Dillard’s Inc. has received publicity as the law comes into question.

“In the Dillard’s case,” The National Law Journal reports, “the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that one California store required employees to reveal the specific nature of their illness in order to deem sick leave as an excused absence.”

This policy, argues the EEOC, violates the Americans With Disability Act. Therefore, policies are about to change once they start entering the courtroom. Does an employer have the right for details or not? It’s a question that remains to be answered.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Los Angeles police officer Robert Hill, 48, hit the jackpot in the courtroom, winning $3 million in compensatory damages and $127,000 in economic damages in a superior court trial for claims that he suffered retaliation after alleging that a supervisor made racist slurs and stole money from a police youth program.

Suing the city of angels in January 2007 after he was transferred from the police department’s Newton division to the Northeast division, Hill stated that he was given inferior assignments and was passed over for promotion to sergeant. According to the city attorney’s office, Hill was transferred because he did not get along with his supervisor. Hill, however, said that he was being retaliated against for reporting to superiors in 2004 that a supervisor made derogatory comments about blacks and Latinos and had taken money from the police department.

In short, the moral of this story is that not all LAPD stick together. There are those brave few who stand on their own and report crimes regardless of where it is coming from.

Popularity: 3% [?]