Penn State Settles Trademark Case Against Stadium-Area Rental Company

Penn State has confidentially settled a trademark infringement action it brought in January against real-estate companies that provide rental housing to people attending the school's football games.

Banks’ Lawsuit Against MBIA Over Restructuring Is Dismissed

Justice Barbara R. Kapnick of New York State Supreme Court said Eric R. Dinallo, the state insurance superintendent at the time, was not “arbitrary and capricious” in authorizing a split of MBIA’s municipal bond business from a structured finance unit that had suffered big losses from guaranteeing debt backed by risky mortgages.

Bank of America and Société Générale, the French bank, were the remaining plaintiffs among 18 financial companies that said the split of MBIA defrauded them as policyholders.

They said it left the MBIA Insurance unit undercapitalized, and siphoned $5 billion from the unit to benefit another entity, the National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, at their expense.

But in her decision, Justice Kapnick said it was not her job to second-guess Mr. Dinallo’s decision, which had a rational basis. MBIA had supported the restructuring as a means to help unfreeze municipal finance markets after the 2008 financial crisis.

“Dinallo found that the transaction was ‘fair and equitable,’ ” Justice Kapnick wrote, because it would leave MBIA Insurance “solvent and that those policyholders’ claims would be paid as they came due.” She said Mr. Dinallo interpreted the law in a manner that was not “irrational or unreasonable.”

Justice Kapnick said her decision did not affect claims by the banks against MBIA itself in a case that the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, allowed to go ahead in June 2011.

The judge oversaw a three-week nonjury trial over the restructuring last May and June in her Manhattan courtroom.

Robert J. Giuffra Jr., a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell representing Bank of America and Société Générale, said the banks planned to appeal the decision.

MBIA’s chief executive, Joseph W. Brown, said in a statement that he was pleased with the decision, and that the company, based in Armonk, N.Y., looked forward to resolving the remaining litigation.

After Justice Kapnick’s ruling, MBIA’s shares surged $2.47 to close at $12.78 on the New York Stock Exchange.

In their lawsuit, Bank of America and Société Générale sought to force MBIA to set aside $2.09 billion in dividends, cash and securities it had received from its insurance unit for the benefit of creditors.

Alternatively, the banks sought to force the state, or MBIA Insurance directors, to sue the parent company to recover that sum.

A Bank of America spokesman, Lawrence Grayson, and a Société Générale spokesman, Jim Galvin, said in separate statements: “We continue to believe that MBIA wrongfully transferred $5 billion from its structured finance subsidiary, to the harm of its policyholders, which we intend to prove in the separate fraudulent conveyance litigation that is under way.”

Lawsuit Against Walgreens Remanded to Phila. Court, Again

Walgreens missed its window to remove a case against it to federal court and U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania wasn't persuaded that its second notice of removal would qualify for an exception to the 30-day removal deadline.

Trustee Comments on Reinstatement of His Malpractice Suit Against K&L Gates

Mark Kirschner, the trustee of bankrupt bottled-water producer Le-Nature?s, called a Superior Court?s decision to reinstate his $500 million malpractice suit against K&L Gates a ?major victory for the Le Natures Liquidating Trust.?

Federal Judge Allows Amended Complaint Against Egg Producers

The federal judge presiding in antitrust litigation against egg producers and processors has allowed plaintiffs who are direct purchasers to amend their complaint for a third time.

Ex-'Price is Right' model wins suit against show

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Jurors awarded nearly $777,000 Tuesday to a former "The Price is Right" model who claimed she was discriminated against by producers because of her pregnancy.

Trustee Comments on Reinstatement of His Malpractice Suit Against K&L Gates

Mark Kirschner, the trustee of bankrupt bottled-water producer Le-Nature?s, called a Superior Court?s decision to reinstate his $500 million malpractice suit against K&L Gates a ?major victory for the Le Natures Liquidating Trust.?

Adbusters’ War Against Too Much of Everything

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

Penn State Settles Trademark Case Against Stadium-Area Rental Company

Penn State has confidentially settled a trademark infringement action it brought in January against real-estate companies that provide rental housing to people attending the school's football games.

Sandusky Seeks to Delay Trial; McQueary Files Writ Against Penn State

Jerry Sandusky?s attorney, Joseph Amendola, filed a motion for continuance Tuesday seeking to delay the start of his client?s sex-abuse trial.

Trustee Comments on Reinstatement of His Malpractice Suit Against K&L Gates

Mark Kirschner, the trustee of bankrupt bottled-water producer Le-Nature?s, called a Superior Court?s decision to reinstate his $500 million malpractice suit against K&L Gates a ?major victory for the Le Natures Liquidating Trust.?

Torts: Judge OKs Battery Claim Against Hospital Absent Expert Report

A battery claim against a Pennsylvania hospital may proceed, a Lawrence County judge has decided, ruling that the hospital lacked consent to continue administering a test after the patient asked doctors to stop because she was in excruciating pain.

Wealth Matters: Safeguarding Assets Against the Hazards of a Lawsuit

The short answer is that someone’s money can never be completely protected from creditors, but there are steps that can be taken to discourage people from pursuing you.

“There is no such thing as asset protection,” said Jason Cain, head of the family wealth planning group in the central region for Credit Suisse Private Bank. “What there is is good business and estate planning that as a byproduct insulates your assets from future, potential creditors.”

Or as Amy Jetel, a partner in the law firm of Beckett, Thackett & Jetel in Austin, Tex., said, such protection is like setting up a series of hurdles. “They can be knocked over, but every time you knock one over, it costs the creditor $500,000,” she said. “So they might say, ‘I’m going to settle.’ They want the easy stuff.”

While this may sound like the realm of just the truly wealthy, asset protection is something that people with a nice home and a couple of cars should consider, particularly if they can imagine being sued. Certain professionals who are well off but far from rich, like lawyers, architects and doctors, are at a higher risk of being sued. And naturally, children who inherit money from parents or grandparents can become targets for lawsuits and higher divorce payouts, advisers said.

So how should people think about what they might need?

R. Hugh Magill, chief fiduciary officer at Northern Trust, said that putting a proper plan in place took time but needed to start with an assessment of what people had and how likely it was that someone would sue them for it.

“So much of the literature about asset protection starts with the assumption that you need an asset protection trust,” Mr. Magill said. “I don’t want to start with the solution. I want to start with the risk.”

Insurance is the first level of protection. After the necessary home and auto policies, the most crucial thing is to have an umbrella policy that limits liability. Think of it as protection against the unexpected, like someone falling down your stairs or being hit by the car driven by your child.

“We view lawsuits as probably the most dangerous thing that our clients face,” Jeremiah Hourihan, executive vice president at Chartis Private Client Group, said. “The No. 1 risk is a car accident where you or a family member causes harm to someone else. Those are the most frequent incidents we see.”

He said the company’s most common liability policy was for $10 million. Depending on how many homes and cars people have, he said, it generally costs about $2,000 to $3,000 a year for $10 million in umbrella coverage. He said yachts, boats or Jet Skis increased the cost.

These policies can also be written to include separate coverage for legal fees from a lawsuit as well as to protect people who serve on nonprofit boards and fear the group’s coverage is inadequate if they are sued, Mr. Hourihan said.

Another easy step is to see what is automatically protected by the states where you live. Florida and Texas, for example, have homestead laws that allow primary residences to be excluded from lawsuits. Illinois and Pennsylvania have laws that protect the equity in a home when it is owned jointly if one spouse is sued.

Retirement assets, like 401(k) plans, and some types of insurance also have some protection from creditors.

Money put in trusts for heirs is another way to shield assets. If they are worded to give plenty of discretion to a trustee in making distributions, trusts can also serve double duty and protect children from lawsuits or divorce settlements, Mr. Magill said, and be more discreet and effective than prenuptial agreements.

People who work in certain professions, like lawyers, architects and engineers, also face liability by the nature of their work. They could be named as a party in a lawsuit, even if they did nothing wrong.

“Let’s say the architect designs the building and the engineers do the drawings and there was a problem with the load-bearing structure,” Mr. Magill said. “So it’s whoever gets sued, they’re going to name the architect.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 2, 2012

An earlier version of this story misidentified the law firm where Amy Jetel is a partner. It is Beckett, Thackett & Jetel  in Austin, Tex., not Schurig, Jetel, Becket & Thackett.

Wealth Matters: Advisers Caution Against Hasty Decisions in Advance of Tax Changes

But financial advisers say that in their rush to do something this year, investors may end up with regrets.

“Any time you make a decision purely for tax reasons, it has a way of coming back and biting you,” said Mag Black-Scott, chief executive of Beverly Hills Wealth Management. “Could you be at a 43 percent tax on dividends instead of 15 percent? The straight answer is yes, of course you could. But what if that doesn’t happen? What if they increase just slightly?”

Various proposals are on the table, but the taxes the wealthy say they worry most about are an increase in the capital gains rate to 20 percent from 15 percent, which would affect investments like stocks and second homes; an increase in the 15 percent tax on dividends; and a limitation on deductions, which would effectively increase the tax bill. For the truly wealthy, there is also the question of what will happen to estate and gift taxes.

In addition, the health care law sets a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income for individuals with more than $200,000 in annual income (and couples with more than $250,000). Taking taxes on capital gains as an example, Ms. Black-Scott, who started her career at Morgan Stanley in the late 1970s, said people needed to remember that the rates were 28 percent when Ronald Reagan was president. “If they go from 15 to 20 percent, is it really that bad?” she asked. “You need to say, ‘Do I like the stock?’ If you do, why would you get rid of it?”

Here is a look at some of the top areas where short-term decisions based solely on taxes could end up hindering long-term investment goals.

APPRECIATED STOCK Many people have large holdings in a single stock, often the result of working for a company for many years. And the stock may have appreciated significantly over that time. But if they are selling now solely for tax reasons, advisers say they shouldn’t. The stock may continue to do well and more than compensate for increased capital gains.

But there is an upside to an increase in the capital gains rate: wealthier clients may finally be pushed to diversify their holdings. “If you have 75 percent of your wealth in one stock, then it’s a really appropriate time to think about this,” said Timothy R. Lee, managing director of Monument Wealth Management. If the increased tax rate “is a motivating factor for some people, O.K. Letting go of that control and the pride that goes with it is a really difficult decision.”

Selling stock now may also make sense when it is in the form of stock options set to expire early next year. “Do you want to take the risk the price will drop in January?” asked Melissa Labant, director of the tax team at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. “What if we have a fiscal cliff or a change in the markets? If you’re comfortable, do it now.”

Some investors may also fear that higher taxes will drive all stocks down. Patrick S. Boyle, investment strategist at Bessemer Trust, said there was no historical link between tax increases and stock market performance.

In the most recent three tax increases, he says, “the market has actually gone up in the six months before and after.” He added: “It’s not that tax rates aren’t important. They are. It’s just that there are so many other things going on that are more important than tax policy.”

MUNICIPAL BONDS Bonds sold to finance state and local government projects are tax-free now and will be tax-free next year. That is no reason to load up on them.

Tax-free municipal bonds have always been attractive to people in higher-income tax brackets. Now, advisers fear that individuals just above the $200,000 threshold, people who say they do not feel wealthy but will probably be paying higher taxes on their income and investments, will try to offset that increase by moving more of their investments into municipal bonds.

Beth Gamel, a certified public accountant and executive vice president at Pillar Financial Advisers, imagined a case where people in higher tax brackets, thinking they were acting rationally, sold stocks this year to take advantage of the lower capital gains rates and then, to avoid higher taxes next year, put all or some of that money into municipal bonds. Maybe they outsmart the tax man, but they do so at risk to their retirement.

“It will be very difficult for them to reach their long-term goals,” she said, “because the yield on muni bonds is lower than stocks over time.”

Or as Will Braman, chief investment officer of Ballentine Partners, said of this trade-off: “It’s not about minimizing the taxes but maximizing the after-tax returns.”

He suggested that people use their deductions to reduce what is owed from taxable securities.

Penn State Settles Trademark Case Against Stadium-Area Rental Company

Penn State has confidentially settled a trademark infringement action it brought in January against real-estate companies that provide rental housing to people attending the school's football games.

Sandusky Seeks to Delay Trial; McQueary Files Writ Against Penn State

Jerry Sandusky?s attorney, Joseph Amendola, filed a motion for continuance Tuesday seeking to delay the start of his client?s sex-abuse trial.

Trustee Comments on Reinstatement of His Malpractice Suit Against K&L Gates

Mark Kirschner, the trustee of bankrupt bottled-water producer Le-Nature?s, called a Superior Court?s decision to reinstate his $500 million malpractice suit against K&L Gates a ?major victory for the Le Natures Liquidating Trust.?

F.T.C. Staff Prepares Antitrust Case Against Google Over Search

The government’s escalating pursuit of Google is the most far-reaching antitrust investigation of a corporation since the landmark federal case against Microsoft in the late 1990s. The agency’s central focus is whether Google manipulates search results to favor its own products, and makes it harder for competitors and their products to appear prominently on a results page.

The staff recommendation is in a detailed draft memo of more than 100 pages that is being shared with the five F.T.C. commissioners, said two people briefed on the inquiry.

The memo is still being edited and changes could be made, but these are mostly fine-tuning and will not alter the broad conclusions reached after an inquiry that began more than a year ago, said these people, who spoke on the condition that they not be identified.

Google said in a statement on Friday, “We are happy to answer any questions that regulators have about our business.” In the past it has said many times that “competition is a click away.”

The commission is also building a team to take Google to court, if it comes to that. Last spring, it hired a seasoned litigator to help with the case, Beth A. Wilkinson, a partner in the firm Paul, Weiss in Washington. In a further sign that it means business, last week it brought on a well-known economist as a consultant: Richard Gilbert of the University of California, Berkeley.

The F.T.C. staff memo does not mean that the government will sue Google for antitrust violations. Next, the vote of three of the five F.T.C. commissioners would be required. And each step is a further prod for Google to make concessions to reach a settlement before going to court. Last month, Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the F.T.C., said a final decision on whether to sue Google would be made before the end of this year.

The Google investigation echoes the Microsoft case in a basic way. Google, like Microsoft in the personal computer industry, has drawn complaints from rivals and antitrust regulators as it has expanded its business beyond its dominant product, search and search advertising. Google has aggressively built off this main business to fields including online commerce and smartphone software.

As it expands its empire, Google takes on new competitors and brings formidable resources. Rivals may suffer, Google says, but the company is improving its products and services, benefiting consumers and the economy.

The American inquiry is moving in tandem with a major antitrust investigation in Europe. The European authorities are pressing ahead and seeking changes in Google’s behavior.

Speaking in New York last month, Joaquín Almunia, the European Union’s competition commissioner, pointed to antitrust regulators’ concerns that Google is “using its dominance in online search to foreclose rival specialized search engines and search advertisers.”

Google is also being investigated by the attorneys general of six states: Texas, Ohio, New York, California, Oklahoma and Mississippi.

Given the momentum of the investigations, antitrust experts say, the F.T.C. staff recommendation was to some extent expected.

The F.T.C. investigators have looked at a wide range of Google’s business practices, according to companies that have been questioned and received subpoenas from the agency.

The areas of inquiry include accusations of manipulating the search results it displays to favor Google commerce services it has developed like Google Shopping for buying goods and Google Places for advertising local restaurants and businesses. In the civilian subpoenas, the F.T.C. calls this “preferencing.”

The investigators are also looking into whether Google’s automated advertising marketplace, AdWords, discriminates against advertisers from competing online commerce services like comparison shopping sites and consumer review Web sites.

Claire Cain Miller and Edward Wyatt contributed reporting.

Greene Left With One Claim Surviving Against Street, Former PHA Board

Former Philadelphia Housing Authority Executive Director Carl Greene had one of his remaining two claims against former Philadelphia Mayor John F. Street and the rest of the former PHA board tossed Thursday.

High Court Dismisses Insurer's Suit Against Margolis Edelstein

Just weeks after hearing oral arguments in the case, the state Supreme Court has dismissed as being improvidently granted an appeal by an insurance company that wanted its lawyers to pay the $5 million the company paid to settle a case.