After going through a wrongful conviction lawsuit, Obie Anthony and his co-defendant, Reggie Cole, don’t think that the huge $8.3 million lawsuit settlement payment makes up for all the years they spent behind bars. A judge recently threw out Anthony’s murder conviction, but after spending 17 years in prison, Anthony doesn’t feel like the money makes up for the suffering he’s endured.

This lawsuit settlement payment settled a civil lawsuit that showed a murder investigation with many problems, such as perjured testimony, withholding evidence, and ignoring leads pointing to other suspects.

The case goes back to 1994 when Felip Gonazales Angeles shot outside of a brothel in South Los Angeles. Both Anthony and Cole ended up convicted for this murder, even though no physical evidence connecting them to the murder was ever found. John Jones, the pimp running the brothel was the key eyewitness in the case. After being convicted of murder, both men were sent to prison without parole.

In 2000, Cole was charged with murder after stabbing another inmate to death. It was Cole’s claim that he acted in self-defense that brought light to his plight. Eventually, the California Innocence Project started looking into the case and found that Jones fabricated his testimony. Cole’s conviction was overturned in 2009, and two years later Anthony was released and was found innocent of the crime as well.

After both men were found innocent, they sued the city of Los Angeles and the detectives on the case for wrongful imprisonment. The suit alleged that detectives wrote reports mischaracterizing eyewitness accounts, suppressed evidence, and protected Jones, ignoring his illegal activities and failing to pursue alternative theories in the case.

While not all lawsuits result in a settlement payment, in this case, Los Angeles paid out $8.3 million to Obie Anthony. Both Marilyn Bednarski and David McLane represented Anthony in this case, and McLane commented that Anthony was paid such a huge settlement because of police wrongdoing and Anthony’s innocence. However, while Anthony was awarded a settlement, the city has never admitted to any wrongdoing and argues that detectives properly conducted the investigation.

Although Anthony doesn’t feel like the money takes care of his suffering, he does have plans to move on. He plans to use his money to open a transition center for exonerated prisoners, giving them a place to go and people to rely on once they’re released from prison.

Amazon has recently filed a lawsuit against several different online companies that participate in the sale of forged reviews. Businesses who have poor reviews on their products can seek out services where anonymous writers will deliver fake five-star reviews as a means of deceiving buyers into purchasing poorly rated products.

Amazon alleges that these sites are infringing on trademarks, as well as engaging in deception, and they are seeking a lawsuit settlement payment as compensation for the resulting damages. Many of the sites specifically offer Amazon reviews, with names such as BuyAzonReviews.com and BuyAmazonReviews.com, which Amazon argues is in violation of their trademark.

The entire purpose of reviews is for consumers to gain honest feedback from other consumers about the safety, reliability, viability, and durability of a product. When companies engage in the posting of fake reviews, it not only encourages deceptive marketing but can also proliferate the usage and consumption of faulty or dangerous products.

One of Amazon’s key services is to provide an immense product selection and accurate reviews, and it provides a valuable resource for conscientious consumers. It is currently the largest and most used product search engine on the web. As such, the existence of fake reviews not only damages the customer experience, but it damages the
reputation of Amazon as well.

Lawsuits such as this are imperative to maintaining the reputability and trustworthiness of businesses, so consumers can continue to have confidence and assurance over the products they purchase. Amazon took a noble step in filing a lawsuit, which will hopefully serve as a warning to others hoping to profit off of the callous deception of consumers. Though, as James Tenser from VSN strategies stated, “Paid ads should be identified as such. Amazon’s legal action is welcome now, but Amazon has already profited greatly over the years from turning a blind eye to this odious practice.”

While Amazon may have ignored this problem for far too long, hopefully this lawsuit is indicative of a needed change in business practices, where honesty and integrity prevail over profits and deception. Unfortunately, forging reviews is a pervasive problem, and it will take a lot of work on behalf of Amazon and members of the reviewing community to hold all businesses accountable for these detrimental practices.

According to a suit filed by the US federal government, Century Ambulance and Liberty Ambulance allegedly collaborated with four area hospitals to transport Medicare and Medicaid patients lacking true medical need, in Jacksonville, Florida. The patients all ended up at one of four regional hospitals: Orange Park Medical Center, UF Health Jacksonville, Memorial Hospital and Baptist Medical Center Jacksonville, landing those institutions in hot water as well. The suit strongly suggests the ambulance companies fraudulently claimed more than 15 million dollars for those misrepresented patients.

The case sailed along to the settlement stage with help from key witness, EMT Shawn Pelletier. The witness testified about witnessing document falsification when billing US government controlled insurance programs. Pelletier will collect a portion of the lawsuit settlement payment for his participation as a whistleblower for this case.

Of course, the ambulance companies and hospitals all deny purposefully filing fraudulent claims in an effort to collect more money. In fact, the named institutions and companies decry the need for the lawsuit settlement cases at all. The operating managers blame a lack of adequate employee training in addition to the complexities of Medicare and Medicaid filing rules for the discrepancies. The companies intend to rectify the problem through increased training and alternative transportation options for stable patients.

Until the lawyers working for both sides finalize the written up settlement agreement, the case continues to sit in limbo for the time being. In the meantime, the government filed a second lawsuit against Liberty Ambulance for additional claims found during the discovery period of the trial. The settlements only seek to collect the money wrongfully taken from the government’s insurance accounts. Unless the lawyers can prove criminal wrongdoing by the responsible parties’, the case will not result in felony fraud charges for all of those involved.

The companies’ deemed responsible for the fraudulent claims must repay the total listed amount by the given date or face further repercussions. The judge will assign the terms of the lawsuit settlement payment upon giving the final order on the case. For the foreseeable future, all further claims from these companies, and related claims from un-involved entities, will be under intense scrutiny by all US government insurance representatives.

Former NHL players including All-Stars Bernie Nicholls and Gary Leeman have begun proceedings for compensation for concussion related injuries acquired during the game.

Judge Susan Nelson has confirmed the validity of these claims put forth by about 70 former NHL players in the lawsuit against the League claiming that they knowingly withheld information about the long term effect of concussions.

This is not the first lawsuit settlement case of its kind. A precedent was set by the NFL on July 7, 2014 when United States District Court granted preliminary approval of a settlement in a similar case. The proposed settlement will offer three benefits: medical exams for retirees, monetary awards for diagnosis of ALS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Dementia and certain cases of chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE diagnosed after death and finally, and initiatives related to football safety.

Lawsuit settlement cases such as this are designed, not to make anyone rich, but to allow them to live their lives with the conditions caused by negligence of their former employers. This lawsuit is expected to cost the league nearly one billion dollars.

The attorneys for the former players stated: “It is time for the NHL to be held accountable for deliberately ignoring and concealing the risks of repeated head impacts, and finally provide security and care to retired players whom the league has depended on for its success.”

The League replied: “While we would have hoped for a different result on this motion, we understand that the case is at a relatively early stage, and there will be ample opportunity for us to establish our defenses as the discovery process progresses.” They also argued for dismissal of part of the lawsuit because of the amount of time that has passed since many of the players suffered injuries.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified financial damages and medical monitoring for the myriad of neurological disorders that are common among both former NHL and former NFL players, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. Their lawsuit will increase awareness of the dangers of concussion injuries and increase safety standards by the league, regardless of the lawsuit settlement payment.

Andrew White, a former BYU student, has settled a highly publicized eviction lawsuit. White was evicted from his Provo apartment complex after his landlord claimed that he violated policies in his lease along with BYU’s code of honor and residential living standards. White, who is gay, allegedly had a dispute with his roommates over food which eventually led to them kicking him out of the house. His roommates allegedly turned against him after he admitted that he was gay and professed his adoration for one of his fellow apartment tenants.

White was evicted from his apartment in the Village at South Campus in Provo on January 23. The eviction occurred 10 days after the conflict with his three male roommates. Court documents show that the altercation included gay slurs directed at White. It eventually led to a physical fight that left White with a couple of bruised ribs.

White subsequently filed a lawsuit on March 19 based on landlord-tenant law and did not actually claim that he had been victimized by the apartment complex due to his sexual preference. White’s suit named the apartment complex’s owner, Peak Joaquin Holdings, LLC, as the lone defendant. The apartment complex is approved by BYU, so tenants are supposed to adhere to the university’s moral code. While it can be argued that White’s behavior does not mimic the religious principles of the university’s owner, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his argument was strong enough to force the defendant’s hand.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Yet White demanded damages in excess of $100,000, so it is believed that he emerged from the conflict with a sizable lawsuit settlement payment. White demanded such a large sum in order to pay for his relocation costs, damages, the repair and replacement of personal belongings and compensation for stress, fear and anxiety that he has endured since his eviction from the Village at South Campus.

Lawsuit settlement cases like White’s are quite common as most defendants would rather settle in order to avoid the costs, time commitment and risks associated with retaining legal counsel and proceeding through court hearings, testimony and so on.

Zynga Inc. has regained the spotlight following a recent U.S. District Court decision regarding allegations of fraud prior to the company’s initial public offering (IPO) in December 2011. This decision comes less than one year after similar allegations were dismissed following testimony of employees and witnesses of Zynga’s fraudulent business practices.

According to the NASDAQ, Zynga Inc.’s stock currently sits at $2.865 a share on March 31, 2015. However, the company’s previous history predictions of high ROIs fell short following the launch of Zynga’s IPO in December 2011, which ultimately led to the current legal situation involving fraud, concealment of business expectations, and inflation of its 2012 revenue forecast.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White released a statement to the public on March 25 that shareholders of Zynga Inc. would be able to continue legal proceedings for Zynga’s fraudulent claims.

On March 2, 2012, Zynga saw a peak in share prices at $15.01; however, the price dropped to less than $3.00 per share four months and 24 days later. While this appeared to be nothing more than a slump in sales and user spending at first, witnesses’ accounts reveal a sinister side to Zynga’s IPO.

According to more than six confidential witnesses, protected by the Whistleblower Act, Zynga management purposely committed fraud to give shareholders a false sense of security and increase purchases of Zynga shares following Zynga’s IPO.

White said, “Confidential witnesses all corroborate that the updates on game users and spending data was readily accessible to Zynga’s management,” which supports shareholder’s claims that Zynga knowingly hid information to produce a strong 2012 forecast.

The true heart of this situation, Zynga Inc., refused to comment on White’s decision according to Zynga spokeswoman, Kelly Pakula Kunz.

Since before the dismissal of allegations in February 2013, Zynga shares have remained steady below $5. Part of the problem lies in a failure of Zynga to introduce new games as competitors, such as King Digital Entertainment Plc, continue to make millions on games like “Candy Crush Saga and Bubble Witch.”

While current information on when this lawsuit will settle remains unknown, lawsuit settlement cases involving fraudulent business practices will continue to be a primary concern for the U.S. District Courts. After both sides have had an opportunity to discuss how to best ensure financial remuneration for Zynga’s actions, shareholders will be able to get some, if not all, of their money back as part of the future lawsuit settlement payment.

Last year spelled bad news to street performers, also known as buskers, in Saugatuck, Michigan. Street performers throughout Saugatuck had been told they must obtain permits before performing on sidewalks in an attempt to earn tips. Street performers fell under the Public Entertainment Ordinance, making it much more difficult for buskers to busk.

That might be coming to a change thanks to a settlement backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU).

Last year, shortly after buskers were asked to cease their performances, Christopher Waechter and Gabriel Novak filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court in Grand Rapids claiming that the prohibition against street performance was unconstitutional as long as they were performing in public areas. The lawsuit states that enforcing the Public Entertainment Ordinance violates the Waechter’s and Novak’s free speech.

Filed March 26th, 2015, the proposed judgment will release claims against the city and city leaders, while allowing buskers to return to their beloved street corners. The lawsuit settlement payment will provide $7,500 to Waechter and Novak, as well as allow street performers to perform on any public space without the need to acquire a permit.

Novak was jailed after he stated that he had the right to play on city sidewalks. Waechter complied when police officers said he couldn’t play without a permit, but quickly stopped busking as the only allowed place, a public park, didn’t provide enough foot traffic.

According to the ACLU, Saugatuck’s Public Entertainment Ordinance, required that businesses who wish to host an event acquire a permit 60 days prior to the event, hold related insurance and even provide toilets and parking to attendants. While a reasonable request of an event hosted by a business, this ordinance was also being applied to street performers. How could they possibly comply?

The city responded by saying that not all of the requirements in the Public Entertainment Ordinance apply in every situation, such as with street performers. The concern of city representatives was that street performers might interfere with foot traffic and cause congestion problems. They further stated that buskers can perform in public parks, not sidewalks, without a permit.

Lawsuit settlement cases such as these are often resolved with consent judgment, which is still pending in this particular case. Waechter and Novak hope to receive a settlement payment as well as reform the laws of Saugatuck, MI to allow street performers to play in the sidewalk for tips.