(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld a federal agency's decision that a former coal miner was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. His former employer, a coal company, had challenged the benefits award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a retired teacher, sought relief to prevent Defendant from reducing retirement benefits and to restore monies wrongfully withheld. The trial court held that Defendant was time-barred to reduce benefits and collect over payment, thus concluding that continuous accrual theory did not apply. Appeals court held the continuous accrual theory did apply, but Defendant was time barred as to over payments made more than three years before the action was filed and may adjust future monthly payments to recoup those prior over payments.

(California Court of Appeal) - Plaintiff applied for disability retirement. His employer disputed his retirement and his claim of industrial causation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the disability was industrial, but that he was barred from receiving retirement benefits because his claim was untimely. The appeals court held that the industrial causation claim was timely and reversed the WCAB order and remanded with directions to grant Plaintiff’s claim.

Russian phishing scammers pretending to be the UPS, sending you a UPS Tracking number through FilesTube. Confused? Well we are!

Phishing scammers targeting Nedbank customers with malware.

Royal Mail Shipment scam with a ZBot Trojan attached to it.

Malware delivered through fake UPS tracking page, attached as an HTML file.

So you are no longer winning lotteries, you are getting donations from generous lottery winners.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a civil procedure action, arising from a copyright infringement action brought by plaintiffs, American companies in the natural foods industry, against defendant, a UK limited company, after defendant sent an email newsletter containing plaintiffs' logos to 343 email addresses, the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where defendant's suit-related conduct did not create a substantial connection with California.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in relevant part, finding that federal copyright law largely preempts California's Resale Royalties Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 986, which grants artists a right to five percent of the proceeds on any resale of their artwork under specified circumstances.

More Ozzy TV- Arctic Monkeys 'Four Out Of Five' Video, Muse Concert Film Preview, Cliff Burton Documentary, Sevendust, Free Volbeat Show and more

All of today's top pop music news stories

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging Oregon's Clean Fuels Program, which regulates the production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions. Industry trade groups filed this suit alleging that the Oregon program violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Clean Air Act. Finding the allegations not plausible, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the trade groups' complaint.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the owner of a tugboat was also considered to be operating an oil barge that the tugboat was moving at the time the barge collided with a bridge, resulting in an oil spill in the Mississippi River. Affirmed partial summary judgment for the federal government in its lawsuit seeking to recover cleanup costs under the Oil Pollution Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, held that a detrimentally impacted seafood business's monetary award under a court supervised settlement program was not properly calculated. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that insurers that paid a claim arising from the failure of a floating oil-drilling platform could not proceed with a subrogation claim against an engineering firm that helped secure the platform to the ocean floor. Also addressed an arbitrability issue. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a case challenging California's "Shark Fin Law," which makes it "unlawful for any person to possess, sell, offer of sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin" in the state, the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint is affirmed where the claim that the Shark Find Law is preempted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and management Act is without merit, as plaintiffs failed to identify any actual conflict between federal authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage shark fishing in the ocean off the California coast and the California Shark Fin Law.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an international trademark action involving rival claims to the "Stolichnaya" trademarks, the district court's dismissal is vacated in part and affirmed in part where: 1) considerations of international comity precluded the district court from determining that the Russian Federation's assignment of trademark rights to plaintiff was invalid under Russian law and dismissing plaintiff's claims under section 32(1) of the Lanham Act for lack of standing; but 2) plaintiff's remaining claims are barred by res judicata and laches.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an award for attorney's fees arising from an employment action in arbitration, the trial court's correction of an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff as opposed to defendant was affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator's award to employer-defendant was contrary to California Labor Code section 1194's one-way fee shifting provision; 2) statutory rights to attorney's fees are not waived or forfeited by an arbitration agreement; 3) trial court's remand to the arbitrator did not violate federal law; and 4) additional award of attorney's fees to plaintiff which was vacated as it was not supported by the arbitration agreement or statute.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case arising out of the near-collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market, alleges that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities they knew were far riskier than indicated by their pristine ratings, the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims on jurisdictional grounds is reversed where it erred in finding that it lacks statutory power to transfer this action to another federal court in which personal jurisdiction over certain defending parties may be met.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an attorney's fees action, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action is reversed where: 1) an award of attorneys' fees are permissible under F.R.C.P. 41(d) ; but 2) the Fair Labor Standards Act does not permit an award of attorneys' fees for defendants and plaintiff's conduct was not undertaken in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, arising after defendant revoked plaintiff-restaurant's alcoholic beverage license and related consent decrees and following state court proceedings on the matter, the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and the case remanded where plaintiff's action is an independent, concurrent action challenging defendant's administrative actions and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought a group of drivers who allege that disseminating certain information contained in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) database of inspection history and safety records pertaining to commercial motor vehicle operators, exceeds the agency's statutory mandate under 49 U.S.C. section 31150, which governs the agency's disclosure obligations, the district court's grant of the FMCSA's motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 31150 was ambiguous as to the agency's authority to include non-serious driver related safety violations in the database; and 2) the agency's interpretation of the statute was entitled to deference and ultimately permissible under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

(United States First Circuit) - In a commercial action, brought by a commercial fisherman challenging various provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government is affirmed where plaintiff's suit was not filed within the thirty-day statute of limitations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Investors who alleged that Pier 1 Imports was a trend-based fashion retailer with inventory that carried a significant markdown risk they failed to disclose were unable to adequately plead scienter.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed the dismissal of a class action consumer fraud and deceptive business case involving cat food labeled prescription cat food that was not materially different from regular cat food. The fraud claim was sufficiently pled and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's safe harbor didn't apply.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order disqualifying attorneys. The appeals court held that no evidence had been presented that Plaintiff's attorneys possessed confidential attorney-client privileged information relevant to the suit and that if there was a conflict other lawyers in the law firm could represent Plaintiff.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an SEC enforcement action arising from the activities of a company described as a "sham incubator for startup companies", summary judgment ruling against defendant is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the district court correctly found that defendant was an underwriter under section 2(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, and therefore not exempt from the the Act's registration requirements; 2) it did not err in ordering that defendant disgorge all profits, with interest, he obtained from certain transactions; but 3) genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment as to the imposition of certain civil sanctions.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

(United States Third Circuit) - In an adversary proceeding brought by the trustee of a corporation and the subsidiaries it had acquired in related leveraged buy-outs, seeking to recover payments the shareholders of the acquired corporations had received for their shares on the grounds that the payments to them had been fraudulent transfers avoidable under Delaware law and the Bankruptcy Code, grant of shareholders' motion to dismiss is affirmed as, in accordance with prior case law, the payments were exempt settlement payments under section 546(e).

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Judgment of the Tax Court that plaintiff could not deduct from its taxable income either the amount it paid to the states or the legal expenses that it had incurred in the litigation, involving the acquisition of Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance companies, is affirmed as, under the application of the "origin of the claim" doctrine, costs incurred in defending the lawsuit were capital expenditures and so could not be deducted as ordinary and necessary business expenses.

(United States DC Circuit) - In an action challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of plaintiff's claim for reimbursement regarding a $2.9 million loss allegedly incurred by a Medicare provider when it merged with plaintiff through a "statutory merger," summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the parties involved bargained in good faith and the consideration tendered reasonably reflected fair market value; and 2) the Secretary's application of the reasonable consideration requirement to the merger was not an impermissible retroactive imposition of a new standard as set out in PM A-00-76.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In a proceeding under Article IV, Section 11(8) of the Delaware Constitution and Supreme Court Rule 41 on a question of law certified to the Delaware Supreme Court from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court answers the certified question as follows: plaintiffs in a double derivative action under Delaware law who were pre-merger shareholders in the acquired company and who were current shareholders, by virtue of a stock-for-stock merger in the post-merger parent company, need not also demonstrate that at the time of the alleged wrongdoing at the acquired company: (a) they owned stock in the acquiring company, and (b) the acquiring company owned stock in the acquired company.

Inspired By The Events Of Los Angeles Summer 1969 Emotional Debris Introduces 2 Catchy Rock Records In Line With Quentin Tarantino's New Epic 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood'

The Second Track From His Third Collection Of Songs Recorded In Some Of His Favourite Studios Around The World