It was announced today that soft drink giant Coca Cola (NYSE: KO) had settled an almost 8-year-old lawsuit today for $137.5 million. The case originated back in October of 2000, and alleged that the company had artificially boosted its strike price in 1999.

According to the lawsuit, back in late 1999 Coca Cola applied pressure to some of its bottlers to buy unnecessary beverage concentrate. By adding "hundreds of millions of dollars" to the books, the company was allegedly able to report much higher sales volumes to its shareholders and keep its stock price artificially inflated. This practice is typically referred to as "channel surfing".

Despite the fact that the company decided to settle, there was definitely no admission to any wrongdoing. A company representative stated that the decision to go ahead and settle out was merely a move meant to avoid any length and drawn out legal battle, and by no means should be viewed as any admission of guilt in the charges.

U.S. lawmakers are going to get their chance today to ask executives from five of the world's largest oil companies what their take is on current gasoline prices.

Executives from the top three American oil companies -- Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM), Chevron (NYSE: CVX) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) -- will be present at today's hearing, as well as executives from BP (NYSE: BP) and Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS.A). While the executives are predictably going to blame the current high gasoline prices on surging oil, it will still be interesting to see just how hard lawmakers hit the executives.

For the executives, it can't be a good feeling to be walking into today's hearing. The hearing is being called "Drilling for Answers: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices and the Pursuit of Alternatives." The hearings will be chaired by Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who in the past has been a vocal critic of the oil industry.

Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NYSE: BRL) shares are rising today after the company announced yesterday evening that a U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Barr, invalidating a patent protecting Bayer AG's Yasmin oral contraceptive. If you think that the company won't fall by too much in the coming months, then now could be a good time to look at a bullish hedged trade on BRL.

After hitting a one-year low of $45.41 in April, the stock hit a one-year high of $58.38 in November. BRL opened this morning at $49.07. So far today the stock has hit a low of $48.45 and a high of $49.99. As of 12:30, BRL is trading at $49.75, up $4.08 (8.9%). The chart for BRL looks neutral and steady while S&P gives BRL a positive 4 STARS (out of 5) buy rating.

An article in today's Wall Street Journal [subscription required], entitled "Ruling allows workers to sue on 401(k) losses," examines a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the right of workers to sue over losses in their 401(k) retirement-savings accounts in some circumstances.

With the stock market showing a lot of volatility and many retirement accounts in the red, employees mind find some solace in this recent ruling. The Journal quoted Gregory Ash, a pension attorney as saying, "Employers -- or whoever they appoint in their stead -- have an established obligation to run retirement plans as `prudent experts' on behalf of participants. Failure to do so can invite litigation."

Employers were charged with accusations that employees were offered subpar investment options and were charged prohibitive fees to make changes.

Before employees get too excited, the same article cites a minority opinion that may provide the ballast for employers to defend themselves against such claims.

Regardless, retirement advocates and investors should be pleased.

Zack Miller is the managing editor of IsraelNewsletter.com and a former equity analyst for a leading multinational hedge fund.

Disgruntled former Enron shareholders looking to recoup some of their losses have been dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court, which declined to review their lawsuit against the investment banks that helped Enron CFO Andrew Fastow enter into sham transactions designed to hide debt and inflate the company's profits.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case is, frankly, insane. Major investment banks entered into deals with Enron that clearly served no economic purpose other than to inflate the company's financial statements.

For instance, some of the transactions involved things like selling a barge to a consortium of investors and then buying it back for more money during the next quarter. What could these sophisticated investment bankers possibly have thought was going on?

In effect, the investment banks served as maitre d's renting out hotel rooms in 15-minute slots to leggy blondes who signed with names like "Crystal Divinity" and men who signed "John Doe." And now they're trying to claim that they didn't know there was any kind of scheme.

These investment banks willingly helped Enron conspire to defraud investors, and now they're being shielded from civil liability for the scheme that they were an integral part of. That's wrong.

I've written previously about how, like the rest of us, the hedge fund gurus are quickly seeing their returns, assets, and now, even freedoms evaporate. Dealbook reports today that the founder of the Bayou family of hedge funds was sentenced to more than four years in prison Tuesday for a scheme to defraud investors.

James G. Marquez was sentenced to 51 months in prison, to be followed by two years of supervised release. He also was ordered to pay nearly $6.26 million in restitution.

Ouch.

His scheme involved inducing "investors to contribute to funds by misrepresenting that the money-losing funds were highly profitable."

Zack Miller is the Managing Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com and a former equity analyst for a leading multinational hedge fund.

Under a new policy that aims at protecting its reputation, China has decided to limit the broadcasting of Internet videos to sites run by state-controlled companies. The country's new policy includes Internet videos posted on video-sharing websites and requires video providers to report questionable content to the government.

According to the new regulations, websites need to get government permits so that they could be able to provide video programming or allow users to upload video. Applicants also must be either state-owned or state-controlled companies. This contrasts with the majority of Internet video providers in China, which are private.

Both the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television and the Ministry of Information Industry agreed the new regulations under which Internet video providers "should insist on serving the people, serve socialism ... and abide by the moral code of socialism." The rules interdict providers to broadcast video that involves national secrets, disrupts social stability or promotes pornography.

If you've seen Borat, you probably remember the scene: Borat, played by Sacha Baron Cohen, goes to a driving school and takes a driving lesson. During the lesson, he makes ethnic slurs, discusses the relative brain size of women, drives on the wrong side of the road, and offers the driver of a passing car money to "make sexy time".

Well now the driver's ed coach, Michael Psenicska, is suing the filmmakers, saying that they misrepresented the nature of the film when he signed the waiver.

He's asking for $100,000 and frankly, given the success of the film and his fairly prominent role in it (the straight man in a pretty long scene), it seems like a reasonable request.

And do the filmmakers really think that describing Borat as a documentary about the integration of foreign people into the American way of life is a fair and complete description?

Just give the guy his $100,000. It's fair.

Toyota Motor Co. (NYSE: TM) has issued a safety recall involving 264,000 of its luxury cars over faulty fuel pipes. Included in the recall are 49,000 Lexus vehicles sold overseas.

The recall is a result of faulty fuel pipes that pose the threat of cracks and corrosion which could result in fuel leakage. So far there have been no reports of any injuries related to this problem, but there have been 39 cases of troubles in Japan from the defect.

It has been a tough week for Toyota. On Tuesday the company entered into a civil trial that claims the company produced and sold thousands of Corollas equipped with unsafe seatbelts. In this civil case, 19 year old Gurinder Singh claims that his 60 year old father would still be alive if not for a faulty seatbelt in his Toyota Corolla.

Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) is facing a number of lawsuits that say its painkiller Celebrex can cause heart attacks. Yesterday, a court threw some of those cases out. The Wall Street Journal wrote "U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco ruled that plaintiffs in the litigation haven't presented scientifically reliable evidence that Celebrex caused heart attacks or strokes when taken at a daily dosage of 200 milligrams." Pfizer says that the 200 milligram dose is the one most commonly given.

The cases involving Celebrex include over 3,000 plantiffs, and some are suing about effects of the drug at a higher dose, but the ruling is still a considerable relief for the big pharma company.

Like most drug liability cases, this one hinges on whether Pfizer knew that there were risks that the drug could cause significant problems beyond those disclosed on the labels. In that case, the amount of the dose would seem to be academic, especially for anyone who became sick.

But the court may have more wisdom than Wall Street and some plaintiffs will go unrewarded. As the tobacco companies proved two decades ago, suing big business rarely yields much reward.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Oil giant Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) got some good news today as the Supreme Court has decided to hear the company's appeal against this summer's ruling over its liability from the Exxon Valdez oil spill back in 1989.

Over the summer, the company was hit with a $2.5 billion fine, but it has argued that it should not have to pay up. It is estimated that with interest, the total amount could actually balloon closer to $4.5 billion.

The Exxon Valdez disaster was caused when the Valdez, loaded with 53 million gallons of oil, ran aground on a reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound. The result was 11 million gallons of oil polluting more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan shoreline, the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

At the heart of the whole debate is one man, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was accused to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Exxon Mobil contends that it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of a captain that violated all company policies, but opponents are not buying that argument. The plantiffs argue that Exxon Mobil was aware that Hazelwood had a drinking problem and still allowed him to captain the ship.

According to a recent report from CBS News, "Direct-marketing firm Quixtar Inc., a sister company of Amway Corp., has sued 30 people who anonymously posted what it considers disparaging remarks about Quixtar in blogs and online forums and in YouTube.com videos."

The company is seeking subpoenas to compel internet sites, including Google (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s YouTube, to give the company information it needs to find out who is making the videos that it believes are defamatory. Amway/Quixtar believes some of the videos were made by former distributors who unsuccessfully sued the company and are under court order not to disparage the company.

For years, Amway has been battling allegations that the company is a pyramid scheme. In 1979, the FTC ruled that Amway was not a pyramid scheme, but ordered the company to change many of its sales and marketing practices.

Unfortunately, the media as a whole lacks a strong understanding of how Amway and other multi-level marketing companies work. For instance, take this line from the CBS piece:

Quixtar develops and manufactures nutrition, beauty and cleaning products that are marketed in the United States and Canada through a tiered selling system, hiring entrepreneurs to sell its products.

This is not even close to how Quixtar really works. Quixtar does not "hire entrepreneurs." "Independent business owners," as Amway euphemistically calls them, must buy products in order to qualify for commissions, and can earn by recruiting others to buy products as well. Sites like Pyramid Scheme Alert have documented how little "selling of products" actually happens.

I'm fascinated by the recent attempt of Australia's Virgin Mobile to apply the internet's unruly, free-for-all mindset on the real bricks and mortar world. If you missed it, Virgin used royalty-free images from Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO)'s photo-hosting site Flickr in a print ad campaign, and subsequently faces some courtroom headaches.

Now comes the equally engaging inverse of that case -- a situation that could be woven only on the web. Popular technology blog TechCrunch has been threatened with litigation seeking $1.5 million, accused of misappropriating this professional photo of Ashton Kutcher, the actor and host of MTV's Punk'd.

What's the evidence? This Google search, apparently. Go ahead -- click the search. Assuming Google hasn't switched things around on us, the, uh, dreamy beefcake shot in question should show up at the top, promoting Google (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s image search (by the way, when did the great Googly Moogly start returning "Extra Large Images"? I gotta keep up).

If you click on Ashton's shiny, hairless torso, you'll be taken to this TechCrunch post, regarding the voice-over-IP gizmo Ooma (bewilderingly, Demi Moore's main man-boy is Ooma's creative director). Clicking on a Google image-search result typically takes you to the web page where you can see the picture in context.

Damning evidence? Here's where it gets interesting, at least for those of us whose job duties include ritual prayers to Google -- TechCrunch never actually used the photo. What has the photographer's agency all litigation-happy actually stems from Google's rocket science.

Apparently, a sass-talking TechCrunch reader, in responding to the Ooma post, included a link to the offending photo of Kutcher -- just a link, mind you, not the image itself. In indexing the TechCrunch post, Google's search math processed the linked image and associated it with the TechCrunch post (the ones and zeros at work are somewhat related to Google bombing -- if you're unfamiliar, here's a rundown of the most notorious incident thereof).

The photographer's agency had best walk away from this one -- it has no case. Or maybe Ashton's really Punk'ng TechCrunch, and this is all a brilliant promotion as part of his duties as Ooma's creative director. After all, had you heard about Ooma before?

UPDATE: It figures -- the Google search now links Kutcher's photo to this Yahoo! Answers page -- I guess it's their headache now. Learn more at TechCrunch's post.

Texas must hate successful internet giants. At least, that is what one must think after two sets of goofy, litigious lawsuits were brought against Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), Yahoo!, Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) in the last two months. On top of the Polaris lawsuit from a few months ago that accused the internet giants of violating its email filtering patent, Performance Pricing, Inc. (from Austin, Texas) now says that the three internet giants, along with AOL, LLC (part of Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE: TWX)) have violated patents related to -- get this -- a "transaction system."

Apparently some smaller firms have made it a point to make money not with innovation and marketing, but from trying to patent basic business practices and processes. This time around, these four companies have been charged with using Performance Pricing's technology "in methods and systems that they make, use, sell and offer to sell."

Is having a website that transacts business with customers a process that is patentable? I'm waiting for Performance Pricing to sue the other hundred million website operators who transact business with customers. Excuse me while I twiddle my thumbs here.

Is this "technology" even patentable? My guess is that the U.S. patent in question, 6,978,253, described as "Systems and Methods for Transacting Business Over a Global Communications Network such as the Internet" will be laughed out of court once it reaches that stage. Performance Pricing has requested a jury trial.

There's an old saying about getting into a fight with a lady: "If you lose you lose, and if you win you lose."

Well, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has won a battle with a 30-year old single mother from Minnesota. A federal jury ordered the woman the woman to pay $222,000 in damages for sharing 24 songs on online file-sharing platform Kazaa -- That's $9,250 per song.

"She was in tears. She's devastated," the woman's attorney attorney, Brian Toder, told The Associated Press. "This is a girl that lives from paycheck to paycheck, and now all of a sudden she could get a quarter of her paycheck garnished for the rest of her life."

The actual judgment could come in closer to half a million dollars, because she will also have to pay the RIAA's attorney's fees.

While this is an important symbolic victory for the industry, you have to hope that they will let this poor woman off the hook. In addition to its financial struggles, the industry is also reeling from angry consumers and upset artists. Demonstrating some compassion toward a single mother could go a long way towards building some goodwill.

But if the industry does decide to play hardball with this woman, they may find out that, in the long run, this victory is actually a major loss.