Today's Date: Add To Favorites
DOJ Requires Divestitures of Amsted Industries Inc
Breaking Legal News | 2007/04/18 23:15

The Department of Justice today announced that it has reached a settlement that will require Chicago-based Amsted Industries Incorporated to divest certain assets in order to remedy harm to competition arising from its December 2005 acquisition of FM Industries (FMI). FMI formerly was a wholly owned subsidiary of Progress Rail Services Holding Corporation. The Department said the acquisition removed Amsted's only competitor in new end-of-car cushioning units (EOCCs) used in the railroad industry, resulted in higher prices, and substantially lessened competition in the market for used EOCCs.

EOCCs are hydraulic devices that protect sensitive cargos by mitigating the forces experienced by railcars during transit and coupling. The Department's Antitrust Division filed a civil lawsuit today in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging that the transaction harmed competition. At the same time, the Department filed a proposed consent decree that, if approved by the court, would resolve the Department's competitive concerns.

Amsted's acquisition of FMI was not subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 since the value of the transaction did not meet HSR reporting requirements. However, the Department opened an investigation after customers complained that the consummated transaction removed a significant constraint on pricing, resulting in an immediate price increase for EOCCs. According to the Department, the merging companies were the only two manufacturers of new EOCC units and two of only three suppliers of reconditioned EOCC units used in the railway industry. The acquisition left Amsted as the sole competitor in the market for new EOCCs and the dominant supplier in the reconditioned EOCC market.

"Amsted's acquisition of FMI substantially reduced competition resulting in higher prices," said Gerald F. Masoudi, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department's Antitrust Division. "This divestiture will create an opportunity for a new entrant to enter the markets for EOCCs and restore competition to these markets."

The Department said that the proposed consent decree requires Amsted to divest all of the intangible and other manufacturing assets needed to produce new and reconditioned EOCCs that it acquired from FMI. Because the FMI business was discontinued as a result of the transaction and Amsted has only one facility that manufactures EOCCs, the decree requires Amsted to grant a perpetual license to its own intellectual property to account for gaps in the FMI assets. The divestiture and license grant will be conveyed to an approved buyer, to facilitate that company's entry into the markets for new and reconditioned EOCCs. The Department said that the divestitures will enable that company to become a viable EOCC supplier and compete with Amsted.

In addition, under the proposed consent decree Amsted will be prohibited from acquiring any assets of or any interest in the development, production, or sale of EOCCs in the U.S. if the value of such acquisition exceeds $1 million without first notifying the U.S. through procedures set out in the decree, unless the transaction is otherwise subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. This notification requirement runs for a period of 10 years.

Amsted is a diversified manufacturer of industrial components serving primarily the railroad, vehicular, and construction markets. Its products include a range of railroad car parts, including couplers, side frames, bolsters, draft gears and hydraulic cushioning devices. In 2005, Amsted reported sales of $2.5 billion. Amsted's EOCC sales in the U.S. are made through ASF-Keystone Inc., a subsidiary of Amsted Industries, headquartered in Granite City, Ill.

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed consent decree, along with the Department's competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed decree during a 60-day comment period to Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 3000, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the Court may enter the final judgment upon a finding that it serves the public interest.



Oregon House passes same-sex civil unions bill
Law Center | 2007/04/18 14:21

A gay rights bill that would allow same-sex couples in Oregon to enter into contractual relationships affording them the benefits available to married couples passed in the Oregon House of Representatives Tuesday. A second piece of legislation protecting individuals against discrimination based on sexual orientation also passed in the state House. That bill would ban discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and create a civil cause of action for violations of the act. Both gay rights bills are expected to pass in the Oregon State Senate, and Gov. Ted Kulongoski has already announced his support for the legislation.

Last week, the Washington State House of Representatives approved a domestic partnership bill (SB 5336) that grants same-sex couples hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights when there is no will, and the power to authorize medical procedures, such as organ donation and autopsies. Earlier this month, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a bill to allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.



Microsoft to pay up to $180 million to settle Iowa suit
Class Action | 2007/04/18 13:19

Microsoft Corp. agreed Wednesday to pay Iowans up to $180 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed the company had a monopoly that cost the state's citizens millions of dollars extra for software products.

The $179.95 million settlement means individuals in Iowa who bought certain Microsoft products separately or preinstalled on computers between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006, will be eligible for cash. Government agencies and companies with multiple copies purchased between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006, can seek vouchers that will enable them to buy computer equipment and software. The amount that can be claimed will depend on which product and how many copies were purchased.

For each copy of Microsoft Windows or MS-DOS, customers can claim $16. Microsoft Excel is worth $25 a copy and Microsoft Office, $29 a copy.

For Word, Works and Home Essential software, consumers can claim $10 a copy, according to the agreement.

No proof of purchase will be required for online claims of up to $100 or for mail claims of up to $200. Claimants will be required to sign a legal document saying their claim is accurate. Lying can bring a charge of perjury.

Notification will be sent to the estimated 1 million class members on April 25, the date when they can begin claiming money. The claim period ends Dec. 14.



Judge rules lawsuit in Ball State shooting can proceed
Court Watch | 2007/04/18 12:18

A federal judge says he won't dismiss a civil rights lawsuit filed against a former Ball State University police officer by the family of a student who was fatally shot by the officer. U-S District Judge Richard Young refused yesterday to reconsider his previous order allowing the wrongful death lawsuit against Robert Duplain to go to trial. A Delaware County grand jury cleared Duplain of any wrongdoing in the 2003 shooting, but the family of 21-year-old Mike McKinney filed a 100 (m) million dollar civil rights lawsuit. Duplain's attorneys asked Young to dismiss the suit, arguing that he had used reasonable force and had qualified immunity as a police officer. Young ruled that expert witnesses could provide testimony that McKinney did not charge at Duplain before he was shot.



Woman sues town after falling in to friend's grave
Breaking Legal News | 2007/04/18 11:17

A Georgia woman is suing the town of Highlands and a Macon County funeral home after she fell into the open grave of her friend in a town-owned cemetery.

Marian May, of Marietta, Ga., fell into the grave of Jean Murphy Henderson in June 2004 while trying to place flowers on her casket.

She remembers the ground giving way as she stepped toward the casket and then hitting the concrete vault 6-feet below. The fall broke her hip, which she eventually had to have replaced.

"It is not much fun being down there, where it's nice and black and you are looking up and I am saying 'Jean, I don't want to go with you,'" May said.

The rescue squad removed her from the grave on a backboard.

A federal judge recently cleared the case to proceed. It could go to trial next year.

In the court papers, May claims the open grave was dangerous because green carpeting, which she says appeared to be a good place to step, was the only material covering its opening. She also says the side of the grave might have been crumbling beneath the carpeting.

She said the town and the funeral home are responsible because they didn't make the grave safe for the service, didn't dig it to the proper size, didn't cover the opening with plywood and failed to warn people about the danger.

She and her husband William May, 92, who claims the accident has cost him the affection of his wife, are suing for more than $75,000.

The town denied the claims in court papers filed in response to the lawsuit.

A lawyer for Highlands said the town didn't know about dangerous conditions at the graveside and that it is not responsible for making the area near a grave safe. The town's lawyer also said May didn't heed warnings from funeral home officials to stay away from the graveside.

Bryant Funeral Home also denied it was responsible for the accident in court papers and said funeral home workers warned May to stay away from the graveside.



Cytochroma settles lawsuit with Genzyme
Business | 2007/04/18 11:17

Cytochroma, Inc., a company managed by former employees of Bone Care International, has announced the settling of a lawsuit filed in August 2006 by Genzyme Corp., the company that acquired Bone Care in 2005.

The lawsuit, in which Genzyme claimed that the former Bone Care employees had begun to develop the company's trade secrets into new products, was being adjudicated in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin.

Genzyme filed the suit in August of 2006 against Cytochroma Inc., Proventiv Therapeutics, LLC, and the three former Bone Care International employees.

The complaint alleged the misappropriation of Vitamin D-related trade secrets, and has been formally dismissed. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

The three former Bone Care employees - Charles Bishop, Keith Crawford, and Eric Messner - formed Proventiv Therapeutics, which was acquired by Cytochroma in 2006.

Cytochroma is a pharmaceutical company that is developing products to treat and prevent diseases and disorders related to vitamin D hormone deficiency. The company is deciding whether to open an office in Madison.



AG Gansler won't appeal Fair Share Health Care case
Legal Business | 2007/04/18 09:13

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said Tuesday that Maryland will not challenge a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit  holding that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts the Maryland Fair Share Health Care Fund Act. The act was part of a state attempt to force Wal-Mart to contribute more for employee health care. In a 2-1 ruling in January, the court upheld a district court ruling which determined that the Maryland law violates ERISA by not allowing Wal-Mart to create a uniform employee health benefit program nationwide. Maryland is now planning to look to other states as models, such as Massachusetts. The Massachusetts health care plan includes a private insurance exchange and requires that businesses help pay for the system.

The Maryland law would have required companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least eight percent on employee health care, or pay the difference of that amount into the state Medicaid fund. The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), of which Wal-Mart is a member, filed a challenge to the health care law last year, arguing that the law is preempted by the federal ERISA, and that the law violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.



[PREV] [1] ..[1011][1012][1013][1014][1015][1016][1017][1018][1019].. [1178] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
Trump faces prospect of addi..
Retrial of Harvey Weinstein ..
Starbucks appears likely to ..
Supreme Court will weigh ban..
Judge in Trump case orders m..
Court makes it easier to sue..
Top Europe rights court cond..
Elon Musk will be investigat..
Retired Supreme Court Justic..
The Man Charged in an Illino..
Texas’ migrant arrest law w..
Former Georgia insurance com..
Alabama woman who faked kidn..
A Supreme Court ruling in a ..
Court upholds mandatory pris..


Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design