Sher won a jury verdict in state Civil District Court that put the firm on the hook for the cost of repairs. The state's 4th Circuit Court of Appeal also sided with Sher in November.

Now Sher's case is one of two scheduled to be heard Tuesday by the state's highest court that have high-stakes implications for Louisiana's insurance market.

Both cases going before the Louisiana Supreme Court involve disputes over policy language between insurance companies and property owners after 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Lafayette and other insurers say their homeowner policies don't cover damage from any type of flooding, including water from a levee breach. "A flood is a flood, without regard to cause," said Jim Whittle, assistant general counsel for the American Insurance Association.

In a separate but similar case last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that insurers aren't obligated to cover water damage from a levee failure.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in that case from Xavier University and dozens of other Louisiana policyholders.

James Garner, one of Sher's lawyers, said the federal courts shouldn't have the last word in the dispute over damage from a levee breach. "One thing is certain: the Louisiana Supreme Court makes Louisiana law, not the 5th Circuit," Garner said.

The state Supreme Court also was scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in a case centered on Louisiana's Valued Policy Law, which applies when a home is destroyed.

Mark and Barbara Landry, whose Vermilion Parish home was demolished during Hurricane Rita, sued Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. after the company denied their claim. The Landrys argued that the Valued Policy Law requires Citizens to cover all of the damage to their home, even if only part of the damage was caused by wind — a covered peril — while the rest was caused by flood water — a non-covered peril.

Citizens and other insurers say their policies cover damage from wind but not rising water, including wind-driven storm surge, and deny that the Valued Policy Law obligates them to pay for flood damage.

The European Union fined Microsoft Corp. a record $1.3 billion Wednesday for the amount it charges rivals for software information.

EU regulators said the company charged "unreasonable prices" until last October to software developers who wanted to make products compatible with the Windows desktop operating system.

The fine is the largest ever for a single company and brings to just under $2.5 billion the amount the EU has demanded Microsoft pay in a long-running antitrust dispute.

Microsoft immediately said the issues for which it was fined have been resolved and the company was making its products more open.

The fine comes less that a week after Microsoft said it would share more information about its products and technology in an effort to make it work better with rivals' software and meet the demands of antitrust regulators in Europe.

But EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes remained skeptical and said Microsoft was under investigation in two additional cases.

"Talk is cheap," Kroes said. "Flouting the rules is expensive."

Microsoft's actions have stifled innovation and affected millions of people around the world, Kroes said. She called the record 899 million euro fine "a reasonable response to a series of quite unreasonable actions."

"We could have gone as high as 1.5 billion euros ($2.23 billion)," she said. "The maximum amount is higher than what we did at the end of the day."

Microsoft fought hard against a March 2004 decision that led to a 497 million euro ($613 million) fine and an order that the software maker share interoperability information with rivals within 120 days. The company lost its appeal in that case in September.

Microsoft was fined $357 million in July 2006 for failing to obey that order.

The EU alleged that Microsoft withheld crucial interoperability information for desktop PC software -- where it is the world's leading supplier -- in an effort squeeze into a new market and damage rivals.

The company delayed compliance for three years, the EU said, only making changes in October to the patent licenses for companies that need data to create software that works with Microsoft.

Microsoft had initially set a royalty rate of 3.87 percent of a licensee's product revenues for patents and demanded that companies looking for communication information -- which it said was highly secret -- pay 2.98 percent of their products' revenues.

The EU complained last March that the rates were unfair. Under threat of fines, Microsoft two months later reduced the patent rate to 0.7 percent and the information license to 0.5 percent -- but only in Europe, leaving the worldwide rates unchanged.

The EU's Court of First Instance ruling that upheld regulators' views changed the company's mind again in October when it offered a new license for interoperability information for a flat fee of 10,000 euros ($14,900) and an optional worldwide patent license for a reduced royalty of 0.4 percent.

A jury convicted Mark Jensen last week of killing Julie Jensen on Dec. 3, 1998, in their Pleasant Prairie home. Some jurors cited the letter as a key piece of evidence.

Julie Jensen left the note with a neighbor to give to police if something happened to her.

"I pray that I am wrong and nothing happens, but I am suspicious of Mark's suspicious behaviors and fear for my early demise," Julie Jensen wrote in the letter. She said she refused to leave because of their two young sons.

Mark Jensen, her husband of 14 years, claimed she was depressed, committed suicide and framed him. At the time, Mark Jensen was having an affair with a woman he has since married.

He faces a mandatory penalty of life in prison during sentencing, set for Wednesday. The judge was to determine if he should ever be eligible for parole.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a California case with similar elements in April. Legal experts say if the court overturns that conviction, it could pave the way for Mark Jensen to get a new trial.

"It would surprise me if he didn't get a new trial based on that," said Phillip A. Koss, a University of Wisconsin-Madison adjunct professor and Walworth County district attorney.

Mark Jensen, now 48, was charged with first-degree murder in 2002, but legal wrangling over evidence delayed the trial repeatedly.

The evidence included the letter, as well as Julie Jensen's statements to police, a neighbor and her son's teacher about her suspicions.

"The economic situation has become distinctly less favorable" since the summer, the Fed chief told the House Financial Services Committee, a sign markets took to be evidence of yet more interest rate cuts by the U.S. central bank which pushed the euro higher.

Lower interest rates can jump-start a nation's economy, but may weigh on its currency as traders transfer funds to countries where they can earn higher returns.

Shortly after his testimony, the euro surged to a record $1.5105 before falling back slightly to $1.5043 in afternoon trading, from the $1.4967 it bought in late trading Tuesday in New York.

The surging euro makes it more expensive for Americans visiting Europe, but makes U.S. shopping more appealing to Europeans.

Since Bernanke's last such assessment last summer, the housing slump has worsened, credit problems have intensified and the job market has deteriorated. Bernanke said that the confluence of these factors has turned people and businesses alike toward a more cautious attitude toward spending and investment.

This, he said, has further weakened the economy.

That is in contrast to Europe where, despite the roaring euro, growth is still on track, albeit slightly slower, and markets are optimistic that should the U.S. go into recession, the continent would be able to weather any such slowdowns.

The European Central Bank, which has left its own rates unchanged since last summer, is expected to keep them at 4 percent when it meets next week.

Carol A. Hyde, a founding partner of Iseman, Cunningham, Riester & Hyde, LLP, a law firm with offices in Poughkeepsie and Albany, was elected the firm’s first managing partner at the partners’ annual planning retreat held in January.

The firm was formerly managed by a three-person executive committee.
Hyde practices in the areas of health care and business transactions.

A native of Michigan, Hyde earned her general studies degree from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and graduated magna cum laude from Albany Law School of Union University, where she was co-valedictorian of her class.

Two Richmond law firms are expanding their reach through a merger.

LeClairRyan and Wright Robinson Osthimer & Tatum are planning to merge March 31 in a deal that will broaden their national scope and add to their capacity to handle large, complex cases, partners with the firms said yesterday.

The combined firm will use the LeClairRyan name, and no job cuts are expected.

LeClairRyan said the merger would expand its litigation practice in product liability, construction, employment and the aviation industry, and provide its clients more representation on the East and West coasts.

"It gives us a greater depth and breadth of services," said Gary D. LeClair, the firm's chairman and chief executive officer.

Founded in 1988, the firm has 220 lawyers and about 225 other staff members at several offices in Virginia and in Boston; Philadelphia; Newark, N.J.; Washington; New York; and Rochester, N.Y.

Wright Robinson Osthimer & Tatum has 50 lawyers and 50 other staff members, as well as about 120 contract lawyers in the Richmond area. The firm, founded in 1986, has offices in Detroit, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington.

It also has built a practice in "discovery solutions," which involve litigation that includes millions of pages of documents or large amounts of data that require technological solutions to organize.

"We were one of the first firms in the country to really have a standardized practice group to do this," said Mark Yacano, a principal at Wright Robinson. "One of the driving reasons for this merger was the fact that LeClairRyan wanted to partner with us to continue to grow it."

The discovery solutions practice is at the firm's office on East Franklin Street in Richmond. It will stay there, while some Wright Robinson Osthimer & Tatum lawyers will move to LeClairRyan's offices in Riverfront Plaza.

Today, domain hunter Chris McElory chucked a federal class action lawsuit at Network Solutions, insisting that the Comcast of domain registrars uses "fraudulent and deceptive business practices to effectively trap consumers into paying its grossly inflated domain name registrations fees".

In the words of Brian Kabateck, one of McElory's lawyers, Network Solutions is guilty of "a very sophisticated form of price fixing". We take issue with the "very sophisticated" bit.

If you visit the Network Solutions website and show interest in a domain without actually putting your money down, the company will quickly register the address under its own name. For the next four days, you can still purchase the address from Network Solutions, but you can't purchase it from any other registrar.

Back in January, for instance, one loyal Reg reader searched the site for "network-solutions-registers-all-names-searched.com," and minutes later, he discovered that "network-solutions-registers-all-names-searched" belonged to none other than Network Solutions. Meanwhile, other readers have pulled this trick with domain names that describe the company's behavior in very different terms.

Though it won't speak to us, Networks Solutions tells others that by self-registering domains, it's protecting customers from cybersquatters on the lookout for highly marketable urls. "In response to customer concerns about Domain Name Front Running (domains being registered by someone else just after they have conducted a domain name search)," the company has said, "we have implemented a security measure to protect our customers."

So, Network Solutions is front running domains in an effort to prevent other outfits from front running. And judging from a recent ICANN study, those other outfits don't exist.

And even if they do exist, Network Solutions' little trick doesn't prevent them from front-running. It merely forces them to spend their dirty dollars with Network Solutions. Network Solutions claims that it would never sell domains to front runners, but we question its ability to identify front runners. After all, it has failed to identify itself.

The company claims that these mysterious front runners are also "domain tasters," those clever characters that temporarily register thousands of domains just to test their "marketability." And it wants the world to know that if ICANN would just prevent people from returning addresses within five days for a full refund, it will quit self-registering domains.

But this is merely stating the obvious. If ICANN removes the five-day full refund, Network Solutions couldn't self register domains without paying good money for them. And it won't pay good money for them.

As Chris McElory's suit says, Network Solutions' self-registering trick is merely an effort to make some extra dough. If customers search on a name but don't immediately buy, his complaint says, they "cannot register their domain name through any of Network Solutions' less expensive competitors because their chosen domain is unavailable through any other service - which (unbeknownst to the customer) is now held exclusively by Network Solutions - who is now offering to sell the domain to anyone willing to pay its grossly inflated registration fee."

The suit even goes so far as to say that Network Solutions isn't the only guilty party. ICANN is also named. "ICANN rules tacitly say that Network Solutions practice is acceptable," Kabateck told us. "We aren't seeking damages against ICANN. We just want a declaration from the court that its allowing this to go on."

What does Kabateck think of Network Solutions' claim that it's merely trying to destroy domain tasters? "Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get," he says. And we can assure you he's not stupid.