A proposed settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by retailers and trade groups against Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. fails to protect merchants from abuse by credit card companies, a national retail group says.

The lawsuit, which dates to 2005, centers on the subject of swipe fees — charges banks collect every time a Visa or MasterCard is used to pay for a purchase.

The proposed settlement terms, initially disclosed in July, were revised and filed Friday with U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.

But changes to the deal failed to win over many of the retailers represented by the National Retail Federation.

In a statement Mallory Duncan, the trade group's general counsel, said that the proposed deal does virtually nothing to protect retailers or their customers, and it attempts to silence any objections for years to come.

"Retailers would rather take their chances in court than accept this one-sided swindle written by the card industry for the card industry," he added.

The National Retail Federation, the nation's largest retail trade group, is not a party to the lawsuit.

In a statement Friday, Visa called the settlement a fair and reasonable compromise.

Under the proposed settlement, stores will be allowed to charge customers more if they pay with a credit card. The pact covers only U.S. transactions.

The two men competing to be Washington's next attorney general are co-workers, but that's about as much similarity King County Councilmen Reagan Dunn and Bob Ferguson will admit to.

Dunn, a Republican, and the Democrat Ferguson have been trying to draw differences for months in their quest to succeed incumbent Rob McKenna, the GOP's candidate for governor.

With about month left until the general election, Ferguson appears to have an advantage. He garnered more votes than Dunn in the August primary, and recent polls show him ahead. But Dunn expects leads to flip flop until Election Day. He put $100,000 of his own money into his campaign in September, according to campaign filings.

Ferguson has offered himself as an independent-minded lawyer who is not afraid to leave party politics behind, while Dunn has touted his experience as a U.S. prosecutor.

A fourth-generation Washingtonian first elected in 2003 to the County Council, Ferguson was an attorney at a prominent Seattle law firm before entering politics.

If elected, Ferguson said he'd create a task force to look into an environmental crimes unit, seek remedies for gangs and continue the practice of consumer protection.

An appeals court on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling that likely would have led to greater disclosure of who is paying for certain election ads.

In March, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the Federal Election Commission overstepped its bounds in allowing groups that fund certain election ads to keep their financiers anonymous.

But Tuesday's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sent the case back to Jackson, with instructions to refer the matter to the FEC for further consideration.

At issue are electioneering communications — ads that don't expressly advocate voting for or against a candidate running for federal office. In 2007, the FEC ruled that only contributors whose donations were "made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications" had to be identified; those who gave unrestricted money did not have to be identified. The FEC regulation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling that gave more latitude to nonprofit groups — like the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS and the President Barack Obama-leaning Priorities USA — on pre-election ads.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., sued the FEC over the regulation, which he called a "loophole" that made the disclosure requirements meaningless. He won a summary judgment from Jackson, who was appointed by Obama. The judge ruled that "Congress spoke plainly" in passing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law — and did not delegate authority to the FEC to narrow the disclosure requirement.

North Carolina utilities regulators said Wednesday they have hired a former federal prosecutor with experience digging into corporate affairs to reveal whether regulators were misled ahead of a takeover that created America's largest electric company.

The North Carolina Utilities Commission said it has hired Anton Valukas and the Jenner & Block law firm, which he heads in Chicago. The ex-prosecutor and his firm are tasked with investigating what happened before regulators approved Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp. taking over Raleigh-based Progress Energy Inc.

State law allows the costs associated with the utilities commission's investigation to be charged to Duke Energy and its shareholders rather than allowing the company to pass them along to its 3.2 million North Carolina customers.

A Duke Energy spokesman said the company was cooperating with regulators in their investigation.

The company on Wednesday separately sought to begin passing along to Carolinas energy consumers the first $89 million of $650 million in merger-related savings promised over the next five years. If that is approved, the average residential customer in North Carolina and South Carolina could save between 80 cents and 92 cents a month beginning in September.

Brazil's top labor court has knocked down a judge's order that Shell Brasil SA and BASF SA deposit $382 million into a fund for workers allegedly contaminated at a chemicals plant.

An emailed statement from the court Wednesday says its lead judge ruled a day earlier in favor of an appeal against immediate payment. A class-action lawsuit seeking compensation from the companies remains before the labor court.

A federal judge in late June ordered the subsidiaries of Royal Dutch Shell PLC and BASF SE to pay into the fund now. Prosecutors sought the order, saying the cash should be immediately available in case workers win the overall lawsuit.

Both Shell and BASF welcomed the new ruling and say they will abide by all legal decisions in the case.
 

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.

The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.

"When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent," Alito said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the judgment but wrote their own opinion. "When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment intended to fund solely political lobbying efforts, the First Amendment requires that the union provide non-members an opportunity to opt out of the contribution of funds," Sotomayor wrote.