A Rhode Island judge is refusing to grant free legal counsel to help the winner of the first season of the CBS reality show "Survivor" appeal a nine-month prison sentence.

Judge William Smith on Thursday rejected 50-year-old Richard Hatch's request for a court-appointed attorney to help him fight the sentence handed down in March for violating the terms of his supervised release by failing to settle his tax bill.

Hatch, of Newport, spent more than three years in prison for not paying taxes on his $1 million "Survivor" winnings. He was released in 2009 and ordered to refile his 2000 and 2001 taxes and pay what he owed. Smith ruled he never did and returned him to prison.

Hatch, who claims he is "destitute," is scheduled to be released in December.

Health care real estate investment trust Ventas Inc. said a federal court has ruled it can immediately collect $102 million in damages awarded by a federal jury in 2009 in a judgment against HCP Inc.

The two companies had agreed to delay payment of the funds while HCP appealed the decision. In May, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment and ordered a second trial to decide punitive damages. Those proceedings are set to begin in February.

Ventas, based in Chicago, said late Monday that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled that HCP could not further delay enforcement of the judgment. In the case, Ventas accused HCP of driving up the purchase price of Sunrise Senior Living real estate investment trust.

HCP of Long Beach, Calif., said in a separate statement it will promptly pay the $102 million. It had accrued the full amount in the third quarter of 2009, and the payment will have no additional impact on its earnings.

Ventas operates a portfolio of senior housing communities, skilled nursing facilities, hospitals, medical office buildings and other properties in 47 states and two Canadian provinces.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SinoTech Energy Limited in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) of SinoTech pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”) on November 3, 2010, including open-market purchasers of SinoTech ADSs between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

The Complaint charges SinoTech, certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. SinoTech provides enhanced oil recovery services to oil companies in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that certain representations made in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially inaccurate. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company’s reported sales and revenues were materially inaccurate, because the nature, size and scope of the Company’s business was materially exaggerated.

On August 16, 2011, a research report was published on the Internet questioning SinoTech’s previously issued financial statements and future prospects. The report alleged that: (1) SinoTech’s sole import agent, accounting for over $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, appears to be an empty shell company with no sign of operation, a limited import history and negligible revenue base; (2) the Company’s only chemical supplier is an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company’s five largest subcontracting customers, which provide the vast majority of SinoTech’s revenues, appear to be shell companies with unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; and (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions.

On this news, ADSs of SinoTech declined more than 40%, to close on August 16, 2011, at $2.35 per share. Thereafter, NASDAQ halted trading of the Company’s stock.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased ADSs of SinoTech between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until October 18, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a federal class-action lawsuit against LegalZoom Inc., the online vendor of legal forms and documents.

The lawsuit had been scheduled go to trial Monday in U.S. District Court in Jefferson City.

But California-based LegalZoom has announced an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit that claimed the company wasn't licensed to provide legal services in Missouri. LegalZoom says it contains no admission of wrongdoing and lets the company continue offering services to Missouri residents with certain changes.

The original plaintiffs were a Missouri resident who used LegalZoom to prepare a will, and two others who used it to organize a remodeling business.

An attorney for the plaintiffs says only that the settlement involves compensation for Missouri customers and changes to how LegalZoom operates.

The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action lawsuit today against Miller Energy Resources, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of common stock from December 16, 2009 through and including August 1, 2011 (the “Class Period”).

Berman DeValerio (www.bermandevalerio.com) brought the complaint against the Company and certain of its directors and officers (the “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The case is filed as 3:11-cv-00397.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff are required to file a motion for appointment with the court no later than October 11, 2011.

The claims arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for class period purchasers.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Miller, an oil and gas exploration, production and drilling firm, and the other Defendants made material false statements about Miller’s financial results and about the valuation of certain oil-and-gas-producing assets it acquired in Alaska. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants: (1) issued false and misleading consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and cash flows; (2) failed to properly classify royalty expenses; (3) failed to properly record sufficient compensation expense on equity awards; (4) did not properly calculate the liability for derivative instruments; (5) did not properly consolidate entities under its control; and (6) improperly reported the value of certain oil and gas assets that it acquired in Alaska. As a result of these problems, the Company was required to restate its financial results. Over a series of almost daily disclosures occurring on July 28, 2011, July 29, 2011 and August 1, 2011, Miller’s stock price dropped from $7.04 per share on July 27, 2011 to a close of $3.37 per share on August 2, 2011, a total drop of $3.67 or 52%.

To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 11, 2011, request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. In addition, you may contact the attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interests in the case. Please note: you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member.

Berman DeValerio is a national law firm representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of securities and antitrust laws. The firm has 49 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco and South Florida.

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday threw out the 4 1/2-year corruption sentence of a long-powerful former Pennsylvania state senator.

The court agreed with prosecutors that U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter did not explain why he sentenced Vincent Fumo far below federal sentencing guidelines.

The court also upheld 68-year-old Fumo's conviction and ordered a new sentencing of an aide convicted at trial with him.

A jury in 2009 convicted Fumo of defrauding the state Senate, a museum and a South Philadelphia nonprofit of millions. The Philadelphia Democrat had been a wealthy power broker during his 30-year state Senate career. He remains incarcerated at a federal prison in Kentucky.