Famed New York painter Chuck Close and other artists are suing Sotheby's, Christie's and eBay, contending the auctioneers willfully violated a California law requiring royalty payments on sales of their works.

The three federal suits filed Tuesday seek class-action status to represent many other artists and demand unspecified royalties and damages — which could total hundreds of thousands of dollars given current art prices.

The suits were filed on behalf of Close — best known for his enormous photorealistic paintings — along with Los Angeles artist Laddie John Dill, and the estate of late sculptor Robert Graham. Graham's works include the ceremonial gate for the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum that was commissioned for the 1984 Olympics and features nude statues modeled on some of the athletes.

A foundation of late California painter Sam Francis also is named as a plaintiff in the suits against Christie's and eBay Inc.

A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges raised concerns about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul Friday, but suggested the challenge to it may be premature.

The arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington over a lawsuit against Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement focused on whether Congress overstepped its authority in requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014.

But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former top aide to President George W. Bush who appointed him to the bench, said that he has a "major concern" that courts might not be able to rule on the law's constitutionality until 2015. That's because a federal law bars most challenges to tax-related legislation before the tax or penalty is paid.

A federal appeals court in Richmond cited that law in throwing out another challenge to the overhaul. Two other appeals courts have reached differing conclusions — one declaring the law unconstitutional and the other upholding it. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in and could possibly even decide to review the law before the Washington circuit issues an opinion.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs’ counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/allostherapeutics. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Allos and its Board of Directors (the “Board”) with breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty under state law and the Board and AMAG with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Allos is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the development and commercialization of anti-cancer therapeutics.

The action arises from Allos and AMAG’s July 20, 2011 announcement that Allos had entered into a definitive merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) under which Allos would be acquired by AMAG in a transaction valued at approximately $260 million (the “Proposed Acquisition”). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Allos stockholders will receive a fixed ratio of 0.1282 shares of AMAG common stock for each share of Allos common stock held. The deal values Allos stock at $2.44 a share using AMAG’s prior closing price of $19.07. The complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition significantly undervalues Allos, as Allos shares traded as high as $4.21 as recently as January 12, 2011, and after the announcement of the Proposed Acquisition the price of AMAG common stock has fallen to $13.58 per share, giving the deal a real value of just $1.74 per Allos share.

The complaint further alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Acquisition, on August 22, 2011, defendants issued a materially false and misleading Preliminary Joint Proxy/Prospectus on Form S-4 (the “Proxy”). The Proxy, which recommends that Allos shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material information about the unfair sales process for the Company, conflicts of interest that corrupted the sales process, the unfair consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition, and the actual intrinsic value of the Company on a stand-alone basis and as a merger partner for AMAG, in contravention of §§14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or defendants’ fiduciary duty of disclosure under state law.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all shareholders of Allos who held Allos common stock during the period beginning July 20, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition of Allos by AMAG (the “Class”). The plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.

Samsung asked a Dutch court Monday to slap an injunction on Apple Inc. to prevent it from selling iPhones and iPad tablets in the Netherlands, saying Apple does not have licenses to use 3G mobile technology in the devices.

The legal battle is the latest round in a series of claims and counterclaims of patent breaches by the rival technology heavyweights playing out in courtrooms around the world.

Samsung Electronics Co. lawyer Bas Berghuis told a civil judge at The Hague District Court that Apple "never bothered to ask about licenses" before it started selling 3G-enabled iPhones.

Apple lawyer Rutger Kleemans hit back by accusing Samsung of using the patent dispute to "hold Apple hostage" because of Apple's legal battles accusing Samsung of copying its iPhone and iPad designs.

"It's a holdup," Kleemans said. "Because Apple dared to take action against Samsung's copycat tactics."

Kleemans urged the court to reject the injunction request, saying the patents involved "are not designed to be used as a weapon against Apple."

No date was immediately given for a ruling.

Earlier this month, a court in Duesseldorf, Germany, ruled that Samsung cannot sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because its design too closely resembled the iPad2. The ruling only applied to direct sales from the Samsung, meaning distributors who acquire the Tab 10.1 from abroad could resell them in Germany. Samsung said it would appeal that judgment.

A German court rules that Samsung Electronics's Galaxy Tab cannot be sold in Germany because it violated patents of rival Apple's iPad2.

A Duesseldorf state court said Friday it would not allow Samsung, based in Seoul, South Korea, to market its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because it too closely resembles the iPad2.

Already in August, the court had ruled in favor of Apple, based in Cupertino, California, forcing Samsung to withdraw its tablet from the market.

Samsung challenged the ban. The companies are involved in a series of legal disputes in countries around the world over allegations that each copies the other's technology.

A Georgia judge who pointed a gun at himself in the courtroom, berated his boss in a bizarre televised rant and admitted to regularly smoking marijuana was ousted from the bench for life by the state's top court Tuesday.

The Georgia Supreme Court's unanimous opinion also barred Catoosa County Magistrate Anthony Peters from ever holding another judicial office in Georgia, concluding he has done "nothing to show that he has any ability to live up to the high standard of conduct expected of members of the judiciary in Georgia."

Peters' home phone number was disconnected, and his attorney Chris Townley did not return calls and emails Tuesday seeking comment. But Peters said during an April hearing that the violations took place during a "rough patch" in his life, and his attorney blamed his behavior on prescription drug abuse after his client was involved in a devastating 2005 ATV accident.

Peters, who is not an attorney, was a detective for the county sheriff's office for 10 years before he was appointed as a magistrate judge in 1997. But his demeanor started changing after a difficult 2005, which began when his father committed suicide and grew worse after the ATV accident. The magistrate was taking heavy doses of pain medications by 2009 after surgeries didn't ease the pain, his lawyer said.