Mayor Angel Taveras painted a bleak picture Thursday of the city's finances, saying Providence faces "devastation" and could go bankrupt if retiree benefits aren't cut and tax-exempt institutions like Brown University don't pay more in lieu of taxes.

Taveras said he cut a projected $110 million deficit for the current fiscal year to less than $30 million but that the city is on track to run out of money by June. He said taxpayers and city workers have already sacrificed ? taxes and fees have gone up, several schools were closed and there are 200 fewer people on the city's payroll compared to a year ago ? and he called on retirees and nonprofit hospitals and universities to do the same.

"Everyone must sacrifice or everyone will suffer the consequences," he said at a news conference at City Hall. "We need everyone to be part of the solution."

He said the city can't afford retirees' guaranteed annual cost-of-living increases ? about 600 retirees get increases of 5 and 6 percent ? and that benefits will be cut one way or another, either voluntarily or possibly through court action. He suggested the city could go the way of Central Falls, which was taken over by a state-appointed receiver in 2010 and where pensioners' benefits were unilaterally slashed. The receiver declared bankruptcy on behalf of the city in August.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walter Energy, Inc. between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/walterenergy/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Walter and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walter, through its consolidated subsidiaries, mines and exports hard coking coal for the global steel industry.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced Walter’s coal production; (ii) that the Company’s commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter at first quarter sales prices would result in a material adverse effect on Walter’s average sales prices and operating results during the second quarter; (iii) that Walter was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business prospects during the Class Period.

On August 3, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its operating results for its 2011 fiscal second quarter, the period ended June 30, 2011. For the quarter, the Company announced net income of $107.4 million, or $1.71 per diluted common share, significantly less than Wall Street estimates. Then, On September 21, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its attempt to “enhance” its historical statistical disclosure and its revisions to its 2011 second half sales expectations. In response to this announcement, the price of Walter common stock declined from $75.00 per share on September 20, 2011 to $66.25 on September 21, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Walter common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.

http://www.rgrdlaw.com

Hustler Magazine argued Wednesday in a federal appeals court that its decision to publish nude photos of a model months after she was killed by her wrestler husband was protected by the First Amendment because she was a newsworthy figure.

The family of Nancy Toffolini Benoit has waged a legal battle against the pornographic magazine since it published the photos after she and her son were killed in 2007 by wrestler Chris Benoit. Her family said she never gave the magazine permission to print the photos.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June 2009 that a notorious death doesn't give publishers a blank check to publish any images they wish. The case went to trial, and a jury in June 2011 voted to slap Hustler Magazine with $19.6 million in punitive damages for running the photos. A federal judge soon reduced that award to $250,000 to abide by a Georgia law capping damages.

The debate before the court on Wednesday was not only whether to reinstate the jury's eye-popping verdict, but also whether the case should have even gone to trial.

The first was Vermont's campaign finance law setting the lowest contribution limits in the country — shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The same fate befell the state's attempt to restrict drug company efforts to collect data on doctors' prescribing habits. On a 6-3 vote, the justices said Vermont's law was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech by drug and data collecting companies.

Now, in yet another case that has garnered national attention, the office of Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell has suffered a stinging defeat, this time in a federal trial over the state's bid to close the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

Some observers are starting to see a pattern — one in which Sorrell and his team have gone to the legal big leagues three times and fallen flat on each attempt.

"The state now has sort of a reputation in the 2nd Circuit and the Supreme Court of not having their act together," said Patrick Parenteau, a former state commissioner of environmental conservation who is now a professor at Vermont Law School.

Shoe retailer Zappos is facing a national class action suit one day after it warned customers that its servers had been hacked.

On Monday, the Amazon-owned shoe company sent a mass email stating that 24 million customer accounts had been breached. The incident resulted in hackers obtaining names, phone numbers, emails, encrypted passwords and the last four numbers of customer credit cards.

The lawsuit claims Amazon violated a part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to properly encrypt and secure customer information, and seeks unspecified damages for 24 million customers.

The lead plaintiff in the case is a Texas woman but the suit was filed in federal court in Louisville, Kentucky on the grounds that Amazon has servers located in that state.

As these type of hacking incidents have become more common, so too have related lawsuits. So far, though, few of these lawsuits been successful because customers have been unable to show that they have been harmed by the data breaches.

The Kentucky lawsuit appears based in part on a novel legal theory that customers will now be more susceptible to phishing and other online scams because hackers have their email. It also alleges the plaintiffs suffered emotional distress. Other high-profile data breach cases such as one involving Sony’s Play Station have been based in part on state consumer laws.

Although courts have been reluctant to find that customers have been harmed by data breaches, there is evidence this may be changing. A security publication recently reported
that an appeals court allowed customers to claim they suffered harm in the form of having to buy insurance for identity theft.

Some media publications this week praised Zappos’ for having a pre-arranged plan to respond to the data theft. The company claims that its customer credit cards remained secure because they were stored in a separate server.