The Supreme Court seemed unlikely on Tuesday to allow employees at a privately run federal prison to be sued by an inmate in federal court, despite his complaint that their neglect left him with two permanently damaged arms.

Justices heard appeals from lawyers representing employees of the GEO Group, formerly known as Wackenhut Corrections Corp, who work at the privately run Taft Correctional Institution in Taft, Calif. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled inmate Richard Lee Pollard could sue GEO officials for his treatment after he fell and fractured both of his elbows.

Pollard said GEO officials put him in a metal restraint that caused him pain, and refused to provide him with a splint, making his injuries worse and causing permanent impairment. He sued in federal court for money, claiming GEO officials had violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The federal appeals court allowed his lawsuit against the GEO officials to move forward. Courts normally don't allow government employees to be sued in those types of lawsuits, but the high court has authorized some if constitutionally protected rights have been violated by the federal employee and there is no state court remedy.

The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of HCA Holdings, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its March 9, 2011 initial public offering ("IPO").

The Complaint charges that HCA, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants omitted the following from the Registration Statement: (i) HCA improperly accounted for its prior business combinations in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; (ii) HCA failed to maintain effective internal controls concerning accounting for business combinations; and (iii) HCA failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties concerning its revenue growth rate.

On July 25, 2011, HCA announced disappointing second quarter 2011 results. On this news, HCA's stock fell $6.64 to close of $27.97. Then, on October 1, 2011, Barron's issued an article titled "Where Did the $15.8 Billion Go?", which claimed HCA improperly accounted for two major acquisitions as recapitalizations causing HCA to overstate reported earnings and avoid taking significant charges which would have negatively impacted earnings. On this news, HCA fell to $18.81 on October 3, 2011.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than December 27, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members.

While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action or for more information about the case, and your rights, visit: www.izardnobel.com/hca/, or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.izardnobel.com.

The Supreme Court seemed reluctant Monday to allow criminals to ask for a previously offered plea bargain after they've been sentenced, despite the inmates' claim of misconduct by their lawyers including neglecting to tell their clients that a deal had been offered.

Asking judges to go back and figure out on appeal whether a suspect would have taken a plea deal before a trial, whether a judge would have accepted it, whether a prosecutor would have withdrawn it or whether the negotiations would have fallen apart "is simply unworkable," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often a tiebreaker votes on divisive issues.

The high court heard appeals from two different sets of prosecutors who had their cases overturned by appeals courts that said criminals were denied their Sixth Amendment effective "assistance of counsel" because of mistakes during plea negotiations. The Supreme Court has amplified that by saying that "counsel's representation must not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that there must not be "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different."

In the first case, Anthony Cooper's conviction for shooting a woman in the thigh and buttocks after missing a shot to her head was overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati because his lawyer gave him bad advice. His lawyer told him not to take a plea offer that could have had him out of prison in four years, thinking that there could not be a finding that Cooper intended to murder his victim.

Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on October 26, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. common stock between August 27, 2010 and October 13, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges OmniVision and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the Company had concealed the loss of its exclusive contract with Apple Inc. ("Apple") to supply imaging sensors for Apple's celebrated iPhone.

OmniVision is a designer and manufacturer of image sensors that are used in digital cameras to convert optical images into electronic signals. OmniVision is one of the leading suppliers of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors ("CMOS") sensors used in mobile telephones. The Complaint alleges that OmniVision failed to disclose that: (a) it had lost its lucrative, high-profile, and exclusive contract with Apple; (b) competition was eroding its "leadership position" in the smartphone industry; (c) delays in the development of its 8-megapixel product line were threatening its prospects; and (d) it lacked a reasonable basis for its statements about its bright prospects in the smartphone market.

On August 25, 2011, OmniVision announced its results for the fiscal first quarter of 2012 and provided guidance for the fiscal second quarter of 2012 that was well below analyst expectations. The Company also disclosed delays in the production of its new 8-megapixel product line. Based on the Company's disappointing guidance, analysts recognized that OmniVision would not be the exclusive producer of camera components for Apple's new, fifth generation iPhone--the iPhone 4S--set for release in the fall of 2011. As a result of these revelations, OmniVision's stock declined $7.55 per share, or 30.4 percent, to close at $17.27 per share on August 26, 2011 on extraordinary trading volume.

On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.

On October 14, 2011, the iPhone 4S became available for sale and for disassembly. Based on a logo stamped on the inside of the camera sensor, experts determined that Sony--and not OmniVision--had supplied the CMOS sensor for the iPhone 4S. In reaction to this news, OmniVision's stock fell $1.65 per share, or 9.3 percent, to close at $15.95 per share on October 14, 2011 on high trading volume.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm.

Labaton Sucharow LLP, with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country's premier law firms representing institutional investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for more than 45 years, seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.

The epicenter of the fight over the patchwork of immigration laws in the United States is not Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico and became a common site for boycotts. Nor was it any of the four states that were next to pass their own crackdowns.

No, the case that's likely to be the first sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court comes from the Deep South state of Alabama, where the nation's strictest immigration law has resurrected ugly images from the state's days as the nation's battleground for civil rights a half-century ago.

And Alabama's jump to the forefront says as much about the country's evolving demographics as it does the nation's collective memory of the state's sometimes violent path to desegregation.

With the failure of Congress in recent years to pass comprehensive federal immigration legislation, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina and Indiana have passed their own. But supporters and opponents alike agree none contained provisions as strict as those passed in Alabama, among them one that required schools to check students' immigration status. That provision, which has been temporarily blocked, would allow the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that said a kindergarten to high school education must be provided to illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a ruling that 12-foot-high crosses along Utah highways in honor of dead state troopers violate the Constitution.

The justices voted 8-1 Monday to reject an appeal from Utah and a state troopers' group that wanted the court to throw out the ruling and take a more permissive view of religious symbols on public land.

Since 1998, the private Utah Highway Patrol Association has paid for and erected more than a dozen memorial crosses, most of them on state land. Texas-based American Atheists Inc. and three of its Utah members sued the state in 2005.

The federal appeals court in Denver said the crosses were an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the Utah state government.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 19-page opinion dissenting from Monday's order. Thomas said the case offered the court the opportunity to clear up confusion over its approach to disputes over the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion.