Two class-action lawsuits have been filed against bankrupt brokerage MF Global as customers struggle to recover funds from the first major US casualty of the European debt crisis.
On Saturday, Seattle-based Hagens Berman said it was "investigating whether the company used clients' money to offset losses the company had incurred in failed investments."

It filed a lawsuit in the name of investors who bought MF Global shares between May 20 and October 28 or who bought bonds issued in August.

The complaint charged that MF Global "made false and misleading statements to investors, including failing to disclose the company's reported internal control problems in segregating clients' funds."

Attorney Reed Kathrein said Friday's resignation of the company's chief executive Jon Corzine, whose activities in the last weeks of the failing firm have attracted regulator scrutiny, was "not an encouraging sign."

"As we continue our investigation, we hope to uncover whether the company mixed investors' and company money, and if Corzine himself played a part in that decision," he added in a statement.

Boston law firm Block & Leviton said Friday it had also filed a class-action lawsuit in New York federal court on behalf of MF Global clients over the same period.
It charged MF Global made "certain materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's internal financial controls and liquidity levels" through its "most senior" officers and directors.

Investors lost some $585 million in market capitalization in the week that preceded MF Global's bankruptcy filings alone, according to Block & Leviton.

The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from some television networks being sued by a paranormal investigator who claims his idea was stolen and turned into the television show "Ghost Hunters."

Without comment, the court turned away an appeal from NBC Universal, Inc., Universal Television Networks and Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.

Parapsychologist Larry Montz and producer Daena Smoller unsuccessfully shopped around an idea for a show about paranormal investigators in 1981. "Ghost Hunters" appeared on the Sci Fi Channel — now known as SyFy — in 2004.

Montz and Smoller sued in federal court. The courts threw out their copyright claims, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that they could sue for breach of an implied contract and breach of confidence claims.

He set out to create a mini-Goldman Sachs. In the end, he built a mini-Lehman Brothers.

Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's resignation Friday from the securities firm he led capped a week of high drama and swift failure.

MF Global collapsed into bankruptcy Monday, and Corzine has since hired a criminal defense attorney amid an FBI investigation into the disappearance of hundreds of millions of dollars in client money.

In another twist, a top regulator has ended his role in the investigation of MF Global because of his longstanding ties to Corzine. Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman Gary Gensler, whose agency is leading the effort to locate the missing client money, had worked for Corzine at Goldman Sachs.

MF Global's implosion, which came after Corzine made a big, risky bet on European debt, revived memories of the 2008 banking crisis and the ruin of the much bigger Lehman.

The Supreme Court says the Florida courts should reconsider whether arbitration is required for claims against an auditing firm that worked on a fund that invested with Bernie Madoff.

The high court on Monday reversed a decision by a Florida appeals court. KPMG was sued by investors in the Rye Funds, which lost millions of dollars to Madoff's Ponzi scheme. KPMG was the auditor for the Rye Funds, and the investors said the company did not use proper auditing standards.

KPMG says its contract requires arbitration but the state courts would not allow it.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida courts only looked at part of the claims being brought against KPMG. The high court ordered the lower courts to investigate all of the claims before making a decision.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether juveniles convicted of killing someone may be locked up for life with no chance of parole, a follow-up to last year's ruling barring such sentences for teenagers whose crimes do not include killing.

The justices will examine a pair of cases from the South involving young killers who are serving life sentences for crimes they committed when they were 14.

Both cases were brought by the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Ala. The institute said that life without parole for children so young "is cruel and unusual" and violates the Constitution.

The group says roughly six dozen people in 18 states are under life sentences and ineligible for parole for crimes they committed at 13 or 14.

Kuntrell Jackson was sentenced to life in prison in Arkansas after the shooting death of a store clerk during an attempted robbery in 1999. Another boy shot the clerk, but because Jackson was present he was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery.

Evan Miller was convicted of capital murder during the course of arson. A neighbor, while doing drugs and drinking with Miller and a 16-year-old boy, attacked Miller. Intoxicated, Miller and his friend beat the man and set fire to his home, killing the 52-year-old man. Miller's friend testified against him, and got life in prison with the possibility of parole.

The Supreme Court wrestled Tuesday with whether government officials are protected from civil lawsuits, even if they tell lies that lead a grand jury to vote for an indictment.

The justices heard arguments in an appeal from Charles Rehberg, an accountant who was indicted three times involving charges that he harassed doctors affiliated with a south Georgia hospital system.

After the third indictment was dismissed even before a trial, Rehberg sued local prosecutors and their investigator, James Paulk. Rehberg argues that he was placed under investigation because of the hospital's political connections and that Paulk's false grand jury testimony led to the indictments.

At issue in the high court is whether grand jury testimony could make a person liable in a civil lawsuit. A key question is whether the justices consider such testimony to be more like an affidavit or a trial. Witnesses are protected from civil lawsuits over what they say in trial testimony.

Paulk argues that the grand jury is part of the judicial process, and testimony there should be afforded the same protection it gets at trial.