DISH did win the case, but didn’t get the 10 figure outcome that company lawyers hoped for. Instead, after one day’s deliberation by the jury, NDS was ordered to pay $46.69 for reverse engineering one of DISH’s smart cards and $1,000 in punitive damages.

Both sides are calling this a victory. DISH says they won the case, which they did, but their legal fees clearly outweigh what they earned. And, let’s be honest, this is going to do zero damage to NDS’ credibility. NDS claims a victory because they don’t have to pay one billion dollars to DISH. As NDS attorney Richard Stone said after the jury’s verdict came in, “We’ve been completely vindicated on this whole lawsuit.”

According to the article, the issue came about after various Adult Fire dancers told Lorelle Katelan, the owner of Adult Fire, that they wanted to be paid the same rate as Bombshells and Sex Bomb dancers. Adult Fire paid its female dancers only $290 per 20 minute show, while the other two companies both paid $320. The owner of Bomb Shells, Tracey Craig, points out that “strippers were not supported by a union and had not been awarded a payrise in years.”

And if you’re thinking about making that corny joke, first read the comment section of Yahoo’s report on the story, where you will find that many of them have already been said.

A Thai Member of Parliament (MP) and a newspaper critic face millions of dollars in damages and significant prison time after being sued for libel by Tesco, the UK's largest retailer, according to a story by the Guardian Newspaper. Both were sued for saying that Tesco, known as Tesco Lotus in Thailand, is expanding too aggressively in their country at the risk of "mom-and-pop" businesses and for accusing the company of using loopholes to avoid paying Thai taxes. Both the MP and newspaper critic say Tesco sued them as a bullying tactic to silence debate.

The story notes that if the newspaper critic loses the case and receives the maximum punishment he will go bankrupt. However, despite the massive damage claims, Thai courts have never awarded over £33,000 (approximately $65,000) for damages in libel cases.

Tesco responded in a statement:

"Tesco is of course not trying to intimidate Mr Kamol or Mr Jit, but we do have a right to defend our company and our colleagues against false allegations. We took this action reluctantly but felt we had no choice after a sustained campaign of misinformation spread by the two individuals over many months.

Tesco does not have a history of acting through the courts and will only do so under extreme provocation. In fact until 2008 we had never taken any libel action at all. It would therefore be irresponsible and misleading to suggest that Tesco had a policy of attempting to suppress criticism."

Well, Thailand isn't the only place where Tesco is suing someone for speaking out against the company; it's also filed libel charges in its own backyard. The company recently filed libel charges in the UK against the Guardian newspaper for reporting on similar tax avoidance. According to the Guardian:

Tesco said the Guardian knowingly misled its readers in a series of articles and a podcast. The retailer said the Guardian had wrongly alleged that Tesco had contrived a tax avoidance structure involving a series of joint venture partnerships held largely offshore to avoid paying up to £1bn of UK corporation tax on sales of its UK properties. Tesco also said the Guardian had wrongly accused the retailer of having already avoided corporation tax on £500m of profits from two property deals using that structure.

The Guardian, like the Thai dissenters, argued that Tesco's lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to bully people from speaking out against the company. The newspaper continued:

"This looks like a deliberate tactic by Britain's largest retailer to shut down perfectly legitimate inquiries into their methods of tax avoidance. At the same time that two Tesco directors are reported to have lobbied the government in private on matters of taxation, the company is now seeking to chill public debate on the same issues"

The Guardian article also states that Tesco's new U.S. operations, Fresh and Easy, has come under fire by political activists, though the company says it has no plans to file libel charges in the U.S.

Well, according to California law, tips can’t be split between employees and managers. A California court has ruled that Starbucks shift supervisors are in fact “managers” according to state law. Because of this, Starbucks now faces a class-action case stemming from one disgruntled California employee who filed suit in 2004 for the barista/shift supervisor tip sharing. The preliminary trial found the company liable and the damages portion starts today, according to the San Diego Tribune. According to a lawyer involved in the case, the final damages could be in the eight figure range.

The blog Starbucks Gossip has a take on the story here. What’s particularly interesting are the reader’s comments, most of whom apparently work at Starbucks stores across the United States and Canada and tend to side with the shift supervisors on this issue.

That leaves about 30 to 50 percent reserved for beef, 75 percent of which must be “diced.”

At the heart of the case is Campbell’s new “Chunky Fully Loaded” line of soups. Hormel believes that there is not enough beef in Campbell’s “Chunky Fully Loaded Beef Stew” to constitute being labeled stew. Although Campbell does print “soup” on the label of the can, Hormel believes that it’s hidden and not likely to be read. Apparently they fear that some consumers will think they’re eating stew when in reality they will in fact be eating soup.

Julie Craven, spokesperson for Hormel, had this to say:

“[The U.S. Department of Agriculture] has standards that determine what products can be labeled as ‘stew,’ and the Campbell Soup product does not meet this standard. This is important because consumers rely on food product labels to be accurate.”

Gary Shipman, a Wilmington lawyer who led the suit, countered by arguing that the order was error-ridden, served out of the blue (as the case is two years old), and that Tennille did not have jurisdiction to rule on the case.

The class action suit accused Sears of overcharging patrons – charging each for four-wheel alignments on cars that can only be serviced with a less expensive two wheel alignment. Although the inflation only amounted to a few dollars per customer, it meant millions of dollars in revenues for the retail giant. Tennille claimed in his order that for each plaintiff that received a $10 check or a $4 coupon, their counsel would pocket nearly $3,000.

Some of the highlight you will find include:

• The mailman who successfully sued for wrongful termination over taking time off to mourn the passing of his dog;
• The salesman who sued after being terminated for sending naked pictures of himself to a prospective customer.
• The employer who paid out an employee’s severance in coins; and our personal favorite…
• The convicted murderer who sued after being terminated as a health inspector for threatening a colleague with an axe during an argument at an Indian restaurant in 2001. The employment tribunal ruled that the employer had acting illegally in not giving the parolee sufficient notice and ordered it to pay him compensation.

The calls allegedly contained threats in an attempt to get back a rental wheelchair used by a customer’s mother before she died, such as “you can’t believe just how literally crazy I am. I’m coming after you, bud. Find my wheelchair and arrange to get it back to me or you’ve got a nightmare.”

Commentary: “We are not an arbitration firm but can we offer a suggestion? (a) return the wheelchair; (b) accept an apology; (c) impose customer sensitivity training; (d) move on with your lives – surely Tennessee offers something else to do with your free time.”

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan sought an order to force Lloyd’s to expedite Wynn’s claims for reimbursement and restoration costs for Picasso’s 1932 work, “Le Reve,” by providing him with an appraisal report or initial damages assessment.

Wynn’s representatives told Lloyd’s in November that the painting was worth $139 million the day before Wynn damaged it in his Las Vegas office on Sept. 30, but was believed to be worth no more than $85 million afterward.

In 1997, Wynn paid $48.4 million for the painting depicting Picasso’s mistress, Marie-Therese Walter.

Wynn has described the damage to the canvas as a thumb-sized flap and said it was “the world’s clumsiest and goofiest thing to do.”

Lloyd’s has already agreed to pay $90,000 to restore the painting, a consultant fee of $21,000 related to the restoration and increased security that was required during the process.

Commentary: This is flat-out ridiculoous. Billionaires behaving badly. We would advise Mr. Wynn to suck it up and drop the suit.