<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Law Advice &#187; litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawadvice.ws/tag/litigation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws</link>
	<description>Lawful Advice for Legal Situations and Litigious Problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:11:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Parties Agree To Settle Generic Wellbutrin XL Consumer Fraud Litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/parties-agree-to-settle-generic-wellbutrin-xl-consumer-fraud-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/parties-agree-to-settle-generic-wellbutrin-xl-consumer-fraud-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:28:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agree]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Generic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wellbutrin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/parties-agree-to-settle-generic-wellbutrin-xl-consumer-fraud-litigation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PHILADELPHIA &#8211; The manufacturer and distributor of a version of the antidepressant Wellbutrin XL have agreed to settle via injunctive relief consumer fraud litigation claiming that the generic pill was deceptively labeled, a Pennsylvania federal judge said in a Feb. 1 order granting preliminary approval to the pact (In re: Budeprion XL Marketing and Sales [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PHILADELPHIA &#8211; The manufacturer and distributor of a version of the antidepressant Wellbutrin XL have agreed to settle via injunctive relief consumer fraud litigation claiming that the generic pill was deceptively labeled, a Pennsylvania federal judge said in a Feb. 1 order granting preliminary approval to the pact (In re: Budeprion XL Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 2107, No. 2:09-md-2107, E.D. Pa.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/tHRg3JIgeq8" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/tHRg3JIgeq8/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/parties-agree-to-settle-generic-wellbutrin-xl-consumer-fraud-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bayer Fails To Get Pennsylvania High Court To Review Forum Ruling In Yaz Litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/bayer-fails-to-get-pennsylvania-high-court-to-review-forum-ruling-in-yaz-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/bayer-fails-to-get-pennsylvania-high-court-to-review-forum-ruling-in-yaz-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ruling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/bayer-fails-to-get-pennsylvania-high-court-to-review-forum-ruling-in-yaz-litigation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PHILADELPHIA &#8211; Bayer Corp. on Feb. 1 failed in its bid to get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to dismiss nine Yaz/Yasmin birth control pill cases on the basis of forum non conveniens (Erika Diaz v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 116 EM 2011, John Gibbs II, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 117 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PHILADELPHIA &#8211; Bayer Corp. on Feb. 1 failed in its bid to get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to dismiss nine Yaz/Yasmin birth control pill cases on the basis of forum non conveniens (Erika Diaz v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 116 EM 2011, John Gibbs II, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 117 EM 2011, Laura Kaplan v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 118 EM 2011, Janet McClellan, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 119 EM 2011, Stacie Money v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 120 EM 2011, Petrina Moore v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 121 EM 2011, Marsha Pickens v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 122 EM 2011, Rachel Whalen v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 123 EM 2011 and Nicole Weir v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 124 EM 2011, Pa. Sup.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/a5g9FKp5aj0" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/a5g9FKp5aj0/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/bayer-fails-to-get-pennsylvania-high-court-to-review-forum-ruling-in-yaz-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.K. Moves &#8216;No Win, No Fee&#8217; Litigation Reforms to 2013</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/u-k-moves-no-win-no-fee-litigation-reforms-to-2013/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/u-k-moves-no-win-no-fee-litigation-reforms-to-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:22:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fee']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moves]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reforms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.K.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/u-k-moves-no-win-no-fee-litigation-reforms-to-2013/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.K.&#8217;s implementation of &#8220;no win, no fee&#8221; conditional fee arrangements has been pushed back, from October of this year to April 2013. The U.K. Ministry of Justice said the civil litigation reforms were postponed for six months to allow law firms and legal businesses more time to prepare.Visit International News View full post on [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.K.&#8217;s implementation of &#8220;no win, no fee&#8221; conditional fee arrangements has been pushed back, from October of this year to April 2013. The U.K. Ministry of Justice said the civil litigation reforms were postponed for six months to allow law firms and legal businesses more time to prepare.Visit International News</p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202541183886&#038;rss=newswire" >Law.com &#8211; Newswire</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/u-k-moves-no-win-no-fee-litigation-reforms-to-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fresh round of litigation targets 12 law schools over jobs data</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/fresh-round-of-litigation-targets-12-law-schools-over-jobs-data/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/fresh-round-of-litigation-targets-12-law-schools-over-jobs-data/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fresh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[over]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Round]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Targets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/fresh-round-of-litigation-targets-12-law-schools-over-jobs-data/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The team of lawyers behind proposed class actions against the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law and New York Law School are in the process today of filing suits against 12 additional schools in courts around the country. The suits claim the schools inflated their graduate employment data. View full post on Law.com &#8211; Newswire]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The team of lawyers behind proposed class actions against the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law and New York Law School are in the process today of filing suits against 12 additional schools in courts around the country. The suits claim the schools inflated their graduate employment data.</p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sign_me_in.jsp?article=http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202540950653&#038;rss=newswire" >Law.com &#8211; Newswire</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/fresh-round-of-litigation-targets-12-law-schools-over-jobs-data/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge denies class certification in Whole Foods antitrust litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-denies-class-certification-in-whole-foods-antitrust-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-denies-class-certification-in-whole-foods-antitrust-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:46:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[denies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whole]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-denies-class-certification-in-whole-foods-antitrust-litigation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal judge has denied class certification in an antitrust case against Whole Foods Market, striking a blow to the 2008 lawsuit brought by an unhappy customer concerned about rising prices. The case is an offshoot of the FTC&#8217;s 2007 challenge to Whole Foods&#8217; merger with former competitor Wild Oats. View full post on Law.com [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal judge has denied class certification in an antitrust case against Whole Foods Market, striking a blow to the 2008 lawsuit brought by an unhappy customer concerned about rising prices. The case is an offshoot of the FTC&#8217;s 2007 challenge to Whole Foods&#8217; merger with former competitor Wild Oats.</p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sign_me_in.jsp?article=http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202540903189&#038;rss=newswire" >Law.com &#8211; Newswire</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/judge-denies-class-certification-in-whole-foods-antitrust-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurers fail to slip the hook for MGA&#8217;s Bratz litigation costs</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/insurers-fail-to-slip-the-hook-for-mgas-bratz-litigation-costs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/insurers-fail-to-slip-the-hook-for-mgas-bratz-litigation-costs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bratz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MGA's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slip]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/insurers-fail-to-slip-the-hook-for-mgas-bratz-litigation-costs/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal judge has rejected motions by Evanston Insurance and its parent corporation, Markel Corp., to toss MGA Entertainment&#8217;s attempts to force them to pay its legal costs for the past two years of its battle against Mattel over copyrights to the Bratz dolls. View full post on Law.com &#8211; Newswire]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A federal judge has rejected motions by Evanston Insurance and its parent corporation, Markel Corp., to toss MGA Entertainment&#8217;s attempts to force them to pay its legal costs for the past two years of its battle against Mattel over copyrights to the Bratz dolls.</p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sign_me_in.jsp?article=http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202540899510&#038;rss=newswire" >Law.com &#8211; Newswire</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/insurers-fail-to-slip-the-hook-for-mgas-bratz-litigation-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rounding Up the 10 Biggest IP Litigation Wins of 2011</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/rounding-up-the-10-biggest-ip-litigation-wins-of-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/rounding-up-the-10-biggest-ip-litigation-wins-of-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2011]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biggest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rounding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wins]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/rounding-up-the-10-biggest-ip-litigation-wins-of-2011/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Litigation over intellectual property may be something of a recession-proof practice area, as lawsuits continue to surge. Corporate Counsel takes a look at the top 10 IP litigation wins of 2011 &#8212; a list boosted by the tech sector and, specifically, by the smartphone wars. View full post on Law.com &#8211; Newswire]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Litigation over intellectual property may be something of a recession-proof practice area, as lawsuits continue to surge. Corporate Counsel takes a look at the top 10 IP litigation wins of 2011 &#8212; a list boosted by the tech sector and, specifically, by the smartphone wars.</p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sign_me_in.jsp?article=http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1327266379874&#038;rss=newswire" >Law.com &#8211; Newswire</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/rounding-up-the-10-biggest-ip-litigation-wins-of-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>American Airlines Creditor: Lift Automatic Stay, Allow Litigation Of Pension Claim</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/american-airlines-creditor-lift-automatic-stay-allow-litigation-of-pension-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/american-airlines-creditor-lift-automatic-stay-allow-litigation-of-pension-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Airlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Allow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Automatic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creditor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lift]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/american-airlines-creditor-lift-automatic-stay-allow-litigation-of-pension-claim/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NEW YORK &#8211; A creditor in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding of American Airlines on Jan. 23 filed a brief arguing that the automatic stay in the bankruptcy should be lifted to allow the litigation of his pension claim against the company (In Re: AMR Corporation, No. 11-15463, Chapter 11, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.). View full [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW YORK &#8211; A creditor in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding of American Airlines on Jan. 23 filed a brief arguing that the automatic stay in the bankruptcy should be lifted to allow the litigation of his pension claim against the company (In Re: AMR Corporation, No. 11-15463, Chapter 11, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/NKvhkPZONco" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/NKvhkPZONco/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/american-airlines-creditor-lift-automatic-stay-allow-litigation-of-pension-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Judge Dismisses Defendant Dril-Quip From BP Oil Spill Litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-judge-dismisses-defendant-dril-quip-from-bp-oil-spill-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-judge-dismisses-defendant-dril-quip-from-bp-oil-spill-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:09:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defendant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dismisses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DrilQuip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spill]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-judge-dismisses-defendant-dril-quip-from-bp-oil-spill-litigation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NEW ORLEANS &#8211; The federal judge in Louisiana overseeing litigation arising from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and ensuing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on Jan. 20 dismissed a wellhead system manufacturer named as a defendant after its summary judgment motion went unopposed (In re: Oil Spill By The Oil [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW ORLEANS &#8211; The federal judge in Louisiana overseeing litigation arising from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and ensuing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on Jan. 20 dismissed a wellhead system manufacturer named as a defendant after its summary judgment motion went unopposed (In re: Oil Spill By The Oil Rig &#8220;Deepwater Horizon&#8221; In the Gulf Of Mexico, On April 20, 2010, No. 10-2179, E.D. La.).<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/nsH88pq5HXc" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/nsH88pq5HXc/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/federal-judge-dismisses-defendant-dril-quip-from-bp-oil-spill-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wholesalers, Braintree Settle Antitrust Class Action Involving Sham Litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.lawadvice.ws/wholesalers-braintree-settle-antitrust-class-action-involving-sham-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawadvice.ws/wholesalers-braintree-settle-antitrust-class-action-involving-sham-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:35:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA['sham']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Braintree]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Involving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wholesalers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawadvice.ws/wholesalers-braintree-settle-antitrust-class-action-involving-sham-litigation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; Direct purchasers who sued Braintree Laboratories Inc. for engaging in sham litigation in violation of antitrust laws moved for preliminary approval of a $ 17.25 million class action settlement on Jan. 20 in federal court in Delaware (Rochester Drug Co-operative, Inc., et al. View full post on LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WILMINGTON, Del. &#8211; Direct purchasers who sued Braintree Laboratories Inc. for engaging in sham litigation in violation of antitrust laws moved for preliminary approval of a $ 17.25 million class action settlement on Jan. 20 in federal court in Delaware (Rochester Drug Co-operative, Inc., et al.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~4/wwlRTtRAmYw" height="1" width="1"/></p>
<p>View full post on <a target="_blank" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lexisnexis/topstories/~3/wwlRTtRAmYw/xlink" >LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawadvice.ws/wholesalers-braintree-settle-antitrust-class-action-involving-sham-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

