<![CDATA[WORLD Law Direct Forums - Class Actions & Defective Products]]> http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/ Class actions, product liability torts, including defective design, inadequate warnings, etc. en Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:33:34 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/images/vbseo_skin_2.0/misc/rss.jpg <![CDATA[WORLD Law Direct Forums - Class Actions & Defective Products]]> http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/ What is Online Trading. http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/class-actions-defective-products/31786-what-online-trading.html Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:38:43 GMT Online Trading In the past, investors had to call up their brokers and place an order on the phone. The broker would then enter the order in their... Online Trading

In the past, investors had to call up their brokers and place an order on the phone. The broker would then enter the order in their system which was linked to trading floors and exchanges.
With the advent of the internet, investors can now enter orders directly online, or even trade with other investors via ECN's (electronic communication networks). Some orders entered online are still routed through the broker allowing agents to approve or monitor the trades. This step assists in the protection of both the client and brokerage firm from unlawful or incorrect trades which could affect the client’s portfolio or the broker’s license.
There are many major benefits to online trading. You have the ability to expand your business for a relatively low cost. Online trading has become big business, and the Internet has helped many businesses achieve a great deal of success. Internet companies such as Amazon.com and Ebay use online trading as a primary means of business and have had great success in doing so, but there have also been many businesses that have tried and failed with online trading.


 ]]> Albert04 http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/class-actions-defective-products/31786-what-online-trading.html The Google-Books Settlement: A Lawsuit Ripe for . . . Congress? http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/class-actions-defective-products/31648-google-books-settlement-lawsuit-ripe-congress.html Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:40:03 GMT Image: http://s.wsj.net/media/google_C_20090518091718.jpg The deadlock over the Google books settlement moved a little late last week when...

The deadlock over the Google books settlement moved a little late last week when Google agreed to relinquish some control over the fate of so-called orphan works. Click here for the Recorder story.

Before we unpack the news, let’s provide a little background.

The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers sued Google 2005, claiming the company’s Google Books project — an effort to digitize huge volumes of books and ultimately make them publicly available — violated their copyrights.

The parties then spent two years negotiating a sweeping digital-books settlement. (Click here, here and here for earlier posts about the settlement.)

But the Justice Department raised concerns about the settlement, echoing voices of others who charged the deal was inconsistent with copyright law. Others raised objections on antitrust grounds, alleging it could allow publishers to charge higher prices for their works.

The modification to the settlement, unveiled on Friday, creates an “independent fiduciary” that would oversee the unclaimed works. That fiduciary would be allowed to license the books to third parties, “to the extent permitted by law.”

But not everyone’s happy with the new deal. According to the Recorder piece, the problem, say critics like Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit that advocates for digital rights, is that right now it doesn’t seem like such a license would be permitted under the law.

Some are claiming now that the government needs to get involved; that the solution is not one best left to the courts to decide. Siy, for example, suggested that “a legislative solution would allow anyone the access of orphan works,” without making one company the gatekeeper.

“Nobody should get a license to orphans without congressional action,” said Pamela Samuelson, a professor at UC-Berkeley School of Law. “This is a legislative matter — you shouldn’t use a class action for that.”

Others disagree. Paul Aiken, executive director of The Authors Guild, one of the parties to the settlement, said that a class action and not Congress was the best way to clear up the problem.

“You can’t solve this problem without something like a class action,” Aiken said. “We weren’t going to sit around and wait for a legislative solution.”

The case is being overseen by Judge Denny Chin in New York. Google is being represented by Wilson Sonsini.





]]> WSJ_law_blog http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/class-actions-defective-products/31648-google-books-settlement-lawsuit-ripe-congress.html Class Action Against The Boeing Company, Inc. http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/class-actions-defective-products/31633-class-action-against-boeing-company-inc.html Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:43:58 GMT Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge, today announced that a lawsuit has been filed against The Boeing Company, Inc. (NYSE: BA) for... Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge, today announced that a lawsuit has been filed against The Boeing Company, Inc. (NYSE: BA) for securities violations related to public statements made by the company between May 4, 2009 and June 22, 2009.

Quote:
Any shareholder, who purchased Boeing stock during the above time period, may move the Court to serve as a plaintiff in this class action. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court for appointment by January 12, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a class member who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff.

The complaint, filed in the Southern District of Illinois, charges Boeing and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws concerning false and misleading statements regarding the 787 Dreamliner. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to inform investors that the 787 had structural problems in its design that would prevent the first flight of the 787 by June 30, 2009, and delivery in the first quarter of 2010. Based on this information, defendants had no reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's business and financial condition.
Hamilton Lindley
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
(214) 744-3000 Telephone
(214) 744-3015 Facsimile
(877) 744-3728 Toll Free
hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com
www.kendalllawgroup.com ]]> forum_admin http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/class-actions-defective-products/31633-class-action-against-boeing-company-inc.html