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 District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Human Genome Sciences, Inc. between July 20, 2009 and November 11, 2010, inclusive. Also included are those who acquired shares in the July 28, 2009 public offering at $14 per share and in the December 2, 2009 public offering at $26.75.

The Complaint charges that HGSI and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements concerning Benlysta®, HGSI's potential new drug for the treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, a chronic, life-threatening autoimmune disease. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Benlysta was associated with suicide in clinical drug trials conducted by HGSI.

The Complaint alleges that when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted its analysis of Benlysta on the Internet on November 12, 2010, investors learned for the first time of the association between Benlysta and suicide in clinical trials, causing HGSI's common stock price to fall. Meanwhile, the Complaint alleges, during the Class Period, HGSI sold over 44 million shares of its common stock in public offerings at artificially inflated prices, receiving $850 million in net proceeds.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January 10, 2012, 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/humangenomesciences/, 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.

A northern Idaho woman has pleaded guilty to embezzling more than $260,000 from Coldwater Creek.

Susan Alene Hopkins, also known as Susan Scott, pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft on Thursday. The Bonner County Daily Bee reports  that a second grand theft count is being dismissed as part of the deal.

Authorities say the former Coldwater Creek executive used a company credit card to embezzle the money between 2006 and 2010. Police say she also took money from the Panhandle Alliance For Education between 2008 and 2010.

The 54-year-old Hopkins is scheduled to be sentenced in February. Prosecutors are recommending a suspended prison term of three to 10 years and 90 days in jail.

The plea agreement also calls for Hopkins to repay $251,943.

Gays and lesbians are not entitled to the same heightened legal protection and scrutiny against discrimination as racial minorities and women in part because they are far from politically powerless and have ample ability to influence lawmakers, lawyers for a U.S. House of Representatives group said in a federal court filing.

The filing Friday in San Francisco's U.S. District Court comes in a lesbian federal employee's lawsuit that claims the government wrongly denied health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse. Karen Golinski says the law under which her spouse was denied benefits — the Defense of Marriage Act — violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

But attorneys representing the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group counter that DOMA is subject to a lower level of court scrutiny because gays and lesbians don't meet the legal criteria for groups who receive heightened protection from discrimination. Under that lower standard, DOMA is constitutional, they argue.

The Supreme Court seemed split Tuesday on whether to require police to read Miranda rights to prison inmates every time they interrogate them about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.

The high court heard arguments from lawyers from the state of Michigan who want a federal appeals court decision overturning Randall Lee Fields' conviction thrown out.

Fields was serving a 45-day sentence in prison on disorderly conduct charges when a jail guard and sheriff's deputies from Lenawee County, Mich., removed him from his cell and took him to a conference room. The deputies, after telling him several times he was free to leave at any time, then questioned him for seven hours about allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor. Fields eventually confessed and was charged and convicted of criminal sexual assault.

Fields was then sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison but appealed the use of his confession, saying that he was never given his Miranda rights on the sexual assault charges.

On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out his confession and conviction, ruling that it is required that police read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from the rest of the inmates in situations where they would be likely to incriminate themselves.

This case is another example of the courts' recent struggle to clearly define Miranda rights, which have been litigated since they first came into being in 1966. The courts require police to tell suspects in custody they have the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.

Rentech, Inc. announced today that it has received final court approvals for the settlements of the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits against the Company and a number of its current and former directors and officers. The lawsuits related to the Company’s restatement in December 2009 of certain of its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. The Company believed that it was in the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters at a reasonable cost to avoid potentially protracted and expensive litigation. The Company and the individual defendants have denied any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations contained in these lawsuits.

The settlement for the consolidated class action lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW) provides for a settlement fund of $1.8 million, from which plaintiffs' counsel will receive an award of attorneys fees and expenses. The settlements for the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-0485-GHK-PJW) and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Andrew L. Tarr v. Dennis L. Yakobson, et al., LASC Master File No. BC430553) provide that the Company adopt certain governance practices, and pay (or cause its insurance carrier to pay) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of $300,000. Over 90% of the aggregate securities class action and shareholder derivative settlement payments are covered by Rentech’s insurance carriers.

Twenty-eight former NFL players have filed a class-action federal lawsuit against the NFL Players Association, seeking at least $5 million in damages. They're alleging current players interfered with negotiations on the new collective bargaining agreement and kept money from the retirees.

Attorney Shawn Stuckey said Wednesday the group includes 25 Pro Football Hall of Famers and a player from every decade since the 1940s. Former Minnesota defensive end Carl Eller, an outspoken proponent of better retiree benefits, leads the list.

The suit filed in Minneapolis also names NFLPA DeMaurice Smith, New England quarterback Tom Brady and former linebacker Mike Vrabel. Brady and Vrabel were plaintiffs on the antitrust lawsuit filed by the current players against the NFL in March before the lockout.