A judge has ruled demonstrators don't have a First Amendment right to protest Friday afternoon in front of a New York City federal courthouse that has hosted several major terrorism trials.

Judge Lewis Kaplan said Thursday he wouldn't order the federal government to let an Occupy the Courts demonstration occur outside the lower Manhattan courthouse. He says the space isn't a public forum and the government acted reasonably in denying a permit.

A government lawyer says the courthouse poses unique security concerns in part because of terrorism fears.

Protest organizers had asked the judge to overturn the General Services Administration's rejection of their permit application. Their lawsuit said their First Amendment rights were violated.

The nationwide protest marks the second anniversary of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against limits on spending by independent organizations.

An appeals court says it cannot reduce a $20 million restitution order against the public relations consultant who partnered with lobbyist Jack Abramoff to bilk Indian tribes out of millions in inflated fees.

Michael Scanlon is serving a 20-month sentence after pleading guilty in part to defrauding the tribes of their right to "honest services." Abramoff persuaded tribes that hired him for lobbying to pay inflated fees for Scanlon's public relations services, and the two secretly split the profits.

The Supreme Court weakened the honest services law last year and Scanlon argued the $20 million he's been ordered to repay his victims should be lowered to reflect that ruling.

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled Friday that courts cannot modify plea agreements.

Shoe retailer Zappos is facing a national class action suit one day after it warned customers that its servers had been hacked.

On Monday, the Amazon-owned shoe company sent a mass email stating that 24 million customer accounts had been breached. The incident resulted in hackers obtaining names, phone numbers, emails, encrypted passwords and the last four numbers of customer credit cards.

The lawsuit claims Amazon violated a part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to properly encrypt and secure customer information, and seeks unspecified damages for 24 million customers.

The lead plaintiff in the case is a Texas woman but the suit was filed in federal court in Louisville, Kentucky on the grounds that Amazon has servers located in that state.

As these type of hacking incidents have become more common, so too have related lawsuits. So far, though, few of these lawsuits been successful because customers have been unable to show that they have been harmed by the data breaches.

The Kentucky lawsuit appears based in part on a novel legal theory that customers will now be more susceptible to phishing and other online scams because hackers have their email. It also alleges the plaintiffs suffered emotional distress. Other high-profile data breach cases such as one involving Sony’s Play Station have been based in part on state consumer laws.

Although courts have been reluctant to find that customers have been harmed by data breaches, there is evidence this may be changing. A security publication recently reported
that an appeals court allowed customers to claim they suffered harm in the form of having to buy insurance for identity theft.

Some media publications this week praised Zappos’ for having a pre-arranged plan to respond to the data theft. The company claims that its customer credit cards remained secure because they were stored in a separate server.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Chemed Corporation common stock during the period between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.

The complaint charges Chemed and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Chemed, through its subsidiaries, provides hospice care and repair and cleaning services in the United States. The Company operates in two segments: VITAS and Roto-Rooter.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (b) that a significant portion of the Company’s hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants’ scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (c) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (d) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (e) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (f) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On November 16, 2011, a Bloomberg article entitled “Whistleblower Accuses Chemed Unit of Medicare HMO Conspiracy” disclosed that a former VITAS manager had accused Chemed of defrauding the federal government by conspiring with health insurers to enroll Medicare patients who were not dying into hospice. The article also discussed a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by VITAS. In response to these announcements, shares of the Company’s stock fell $6.87 per share, or 11%, to close at $50.65 per share on November 16, 2011.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than March 12, 2012.

A “lead plaintiff” is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Chemed shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” in each of the last nine years.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP  
10 East 40th Street  
New York, New York 10016  
(877) 779-1414  
www.bernlieb.com 

The Supreme Court upheld a law Wednesday that extended U.S. copyright protection to books, musical compositions and other works by foreign artists that had been available without paying royalties.

The justices said in a 6-2 decision Wednesday that Congress acted within its power to give protection to works that had been in the public domain. The law's challengers complained that community orchestras, academics and others who rely on works that are available for free have effectively been priced out of performing "Peter and the Wolf" and other pieces that had been mainstays of their repertoires.

The case concerned a 1994 law that was intended to bring the U.S. into compliance with an international treaty on intellectual property. The law made copyright protection available to foreign works that previously could not have been copyrighted.

The court ruled in 2003 that Congress may extend the life of a copyright. Wednesday's decision was the first time it said that published works lacking a copyright could later be protected.

"Neither congressional practice nor our decisions treat the public domain, in any and all cases, as untouchable by copyright legislation. The First Amendment likewise provides no exceptional solicitude for works in the public domain," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her opinion for the court.

But Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for himself and Justice Samuel Alito, said that an important purpose of a copyright is to encourage an author or artist to produce new work. "The statute before us, however, does not encourage anyone to produce a single new work. By definition, it bestows monetary rewards only on owners of old works," Breyer said.

A federal appeals court has upheld the firing of an Indiana sheriff's deputy who accused the department of racism in part because detectives watched excerpts from the movie "Blazing Saddles" in his presence.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Warrick County Sheriff's Deputy Kevin Harris' 2007 firing for insubordination was legal. Harris was let go during a standard one-year probationary period.

Harris claimed white officers on probation received better treatment despite their performance problems. Harris also claimed other deputies gave him racially tinged nicknames modeled after African-American TV characters, according to court documents.

A federal judge in Indianapolis, however, ruled there wasn't enough evidence to show discrimination, and the appeals court agreed.