Walt Disney's plans to distribute its content over new digital platforms came under pressure on Thursday when Liberty Media sued the company, saying lucrative licensing contracts had been violated by the sale of Disney films over the internet.

Starz Entertainment, a pay-TV service owned by Liberty, which is controlled by John Malone, licenses Disney films for broadcast.

But Starz alleged in a suit filed in California that the sale of Disney films over the internet on Apple's iTunes platform and via Walmart.com breached its licensing deals with Disney.

Recent Disney films to have been sold on iTunes include Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Cars. Starz contends these films should have not been made available for digital download until they had appeared on the company's own services.

Starz filed the suit against Buena Vista Television, a subsidiary of Disney. In the court papers, Starz claims to have paid more than $1bn over last 10 years for exclusive rights to Disney content.

Robert Clasen, chief executive and chairman of Starz Entertainment, said talks had ended in failure, and the the company had been left with "no choice".

"Our agreements clearly prohibit them from selling their movies by electronic download over the internet while they are exclusive to Starz. If Disney is permitted to violate our contract in this manner, it will undermine the integrity of copyright in general which is a cornerstone of our industry."

Mr Clasen said Hollywood studios had aggressively moved to protect the copyright of their content on the internet. "Starz must be equally aggressive in protecting the value of the deal it made."

The suit seeks to prevent Buena Vista Television "from continuing to infringe on Starz's rights".

Buena Vista said: "We believe Starz misreads the agreement with Buena Vista Television and that its claim is without merit. Buena Vista Television retained and has the right to distribute its motion pictures in a wide range of mediums."

Digital distribution of content has become a central part of Disney's growth strategy under Bob Iger, the media group's chief executive. The group has led its peers, signing the first distribution deal between a Hollywood studio and Apple's iTunes platform.

The expulsions will be erased from the record and the students will be allowed to make up for missed work. Two of them still must write letters of apology to a teacher named in the movie and his wife.

In the movie, the "teddy bear master" orders stuffed animals to kill a teacher who had embarrassed him, but students battle the toy beasts, according to documents filed in court.

School officials last year expelled the four students who made the film, arguing that it was disruptive and they saw it as a threat to Knightstown Intermediate School teacher Dan Clevenger.

Two of the students sued, claiming their free-speech rights were violated. A federal judge in December ordered that school officials allow them back into class, saying that although the students should apologize for the "humiliating" and "obscene" movie, district officials had not proven that the work disrupted school.

A third student joined the lawsuit after it was filed, and the fourth student did not challenge the expulsion.

Superintendent David McGuire said the school district's insurance company will cover the cost of the $69,000 settlement that will be split among the plaintiffs.

U.S. Chief District Judge Claire Eagan vacated the jury‘s ruling against Ford and ordered the case retried beginning July 16.

Brewster said Wednesday that Eagan‘s basis for the decision involved matters that Ford‘s attorneys didn‘t object to during the trial.

After a trial on the merits, for the reasons that follow, notwithstanding the compelling interest of Congress in protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web, I conclude today that COPA facially violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs because: (1) at least some of the plaintiffs have standing; (2) COPA is not narrowly tailored to Congress’ compelling interest; (3) defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that COPA is the least restrictive, most effective alternative in achieving the compelling interest; and (4) COPA is vague and overbroad. As a result, I will issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of COPA.

The US Supreme Court in 2004 upheld a temporary injunction against the enforcement of COPA in Ashcroft v. ACLU, holding that COPA would likely violate the First Amendment, and remanded the case back to the District Court. Judge Reed presided over a four-week trial on the merits which concluded in November 2006.

COPA was enacted in 1998 after similar provisions contained in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) were struck down in Reno v. ACLU as unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and because less restrictive alternatives were available. Last year, Google fought a Justice Department subpoena seeking to force the search engine giant to hand over a large amount of user data, including one week's worth of query searches and up to 1 million web addresses as part of a federal effort to rewrite COPA. 

LipidLabs  announced the approval of its corporate governance guidelines for its management and board of directors. The Company has approved a code of conduct and code of ethics, as recommended by the Sarbanes/Oxley Act. In addition, the Company is currently seeking to add independent directors to its Board of directors and audit committee. Board Members serve the interests of the Company and its stockholders as highly qualified candidates with the personal integrity, knowledge, skills, expertise, diversity of experience, ability to make independent analytical inquiries, understanding of the Company’s business environment and willingness to devote adequate time and effort to serve as members of the Board.

"We have initiated a program of corporate compliance intended to create a strong corporate governance function within LipidLabs," stated President Tommy Cloud. "We view corporate governance as an essential protection for our shareholders and as an essential support for the universities from whom we license our new technologies. Each stakeholder needs to know that good corporate governance controls are in place as we develop a culture of transparency at LipidLabs," he added.

"We think some people may have skipped over it on the form – even with the software, in some instances – just completing the return as they did last year. We've been surprised by that," Everson said.

For this year only, most taxpayers can claim a refund of $30 to $60. The amount depends on the size of your family, for taxes the IRS mistakenly collected on long-distance phone services. So far, 30 percent of tax filers are failing to claim the refund, and half of the taxpayers paid preparers to complete their return, Forbes reported.

On the other hand, the IRS received huge telephone refund claims, allegedly fraudulent, for around $10,000 early in the filing season. "That's a lot of phone usage. Even my teenage kids can't generate that much phone usage," Everson joked. A subsequent crackdown on fraud appears to be effective, he said.

Other challenges for the IRS included extensions of tax breaks that did not become final until the end of December. The agency had to hussle to implement the changes in time for filing deadlines, and incorporate the changes into software programs.

A new direct-deposit service was also difficult: Filers can split their refund and have it sent electronically to different financial institutions. Everson said about 55,000 people took advantage of the service, that’s of 74 million returns processed so far, but he expects it to become more popular.

James Paone, a partner at Lomurro, Davison, Eastman and Munoz in Freehold, N.J., said that the firm's insurer -- The Chubb Corp. -- said several weeks ago that it would not add the blog to the existing policy. "We were in the process of beginning to set up a blog, having internal discussions about what areas of law would be the subjects," he said. "We wanted to cover the first base, which is Chubb's coverage. Our insurance carrier said a blog is not a risk they were interested in insuring. The entire discussion stopped."

Paone said his firm contacted Chubb to ask about insurance coverage in case someone tried to sue it over content in the blog. Now, the law firm is in the process of setting up a meeting with Chubb "so we can understand what their rationale is for saying they weren't interested in covering that kind of risk," Paone said.

Chubb did not immediately respond to a request for comment.