Earlier in the year, the United States Supreme Court decided to hear a case regarding the country’s drug industry and federal antitrust enforcers, a billion dollar case that has turned ugly. The outcome of this said case will decide on how fast cheaper generic drugs can be released in the market. The judges explained that they will be making one Abbott Laboratories case as their basis on how to deal with the “pay for delay” agreement which has drug buyers spending a total of $3.5 billion per year.

The agreement’s terms include having branded drug manufacturers pay a sum to other companies to discontinue selling generic versions of their products. This, as the pharmaceutical industry puts it, is a licit settlement of patent dispute. Deals like these have been made way back since 2005, and as the Federal Trade Commission is currently trying to suppress the matter, several companies – Bayer AG (BAYN), Merck & Co. (MRK), Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY), Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. (WPI) and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA) – have been the center of many court cases.

These settlements, which are also termed as reverse payments, are generally acceptable in the opinion of three federal appeals courts that would later rule on the matter in June. Antitrust enforcers and drug manufacturers want the Supreme Court to set a standard that will apply to all states. Ralph Neas, the president for the Generic Pharmaceutical Association in Washington, says that “This case could determine how an entire industry does business because it would dramatically affect the economics of each decision to introduce a generic drug.”

With the help of the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, is filing an appeal to reverse a ruling relating to an Androgel (a drug indicated for decreased testosterone levels) lawsuit against Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. (now controlled by Abbot Labs), along with three generic drug companies. Solvay had predicted a significant decrease in profits once competition would arrive, and so they paid off three generic drug manufacturers $42 million per year just to postpone the release of rival drugs.

This happened after the Food and Drug Administration approved to have generic versions in the market. However, there was no confirmation that a rival generic drug is scheduled for immediate release.“ The agreements made economic sense only as a mechanism for Solvay to pay its nascent generic competitors to delay competing with it,” according to the FTC.

In one of the most expensive rules in the history of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), their office was able to demonstrate the first nationwide caps in mercury and several other hazards that come with industrial boilers. They had established this while giving the industry what it demands for companies to be given more time to conform. The said boiler rule is one of the many regulations finalized by the agency last December 22, 2012. The overall cost per year will total a whopping $2 billion, something that different industry groups are not happy about, given the circumstances of today’s economy.

Many environmental groups feel that the EPA is giving in too much to the pressure they get from business groups and lawmakers. They claim that the deadline extension the agency has set (which was extended for another three years, with the option to ask for an additional year) is more likely to cause a lot of asthma attacks and sudden deaths. And James Pew of the Washingon-based Earthjustice wrote in an e-mail message that the holdup is “completely unnecessary, especially given that the changes to the emission standards are relatively small.” Pew is one of the lawyers behind the court cases that prompted the agency to issue the boiler rule.

“For the second straight week, the EPA has finalized another costly and crippling regulation at a time when our economy is on the brink,” shares Hay Timmons, the president of the National Association of Manufacturers which represents the companies Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) and General Electric Co. (GE). Paper plants, hospitals, schools, and various manufacturers all run boilers, and they have largely been set apart from those types with tight controls on acid gases, mercury, and particulate matter that the agency had already issued for coal-fired power plants. The agency has also estimated that the final boiler will cost the industry $1.6 billion each year.

Last year, the EPA had already proposed a set of standards on controls on boilers, but users urged them to make more adjustments. One example would be to require that more sulfur dioxide and mercury must be eliminated from a boiler’s exhaust or non-mercury metals and particulate matter will be cut. In one of their fact sheets, the agency points out that “These adjustments have retained the significant health benefits and resulted in rules that are simpler to implement.”

Issues over royalty rates for streaming songs on the Internet have been around for over 10 years now. Companies such as Pandora Media and various other internet radio services are worried about their survival in the digital age, considering the circumstances that artists nowadays aren’t paid as much as they used to be. And although arguments regarding the matter have simmered down for some time now, it has been reignited by a proposed bill in Congress that will have a lot to do with the conditions of digital royalty rates.

The federal Copyright Royalty Board is responsible for setting rates, but different rates apply to Internet radio services like Pandora, as opposed to cable services like Sirius XM. Pandora reportedly pays a cent to musicians and record companies every time a song is played online, which totaled more than half their revenue last year. Sirius XM, on the other hand, pays only 8 percent of their total income.

Pandora has been one of those companies pushing for lower rates for streaming music online, and they have been scrutinized out in the open because of it. And since online streaming has turned into one of the music industry’s biggest sources of income, their issue has become even tougher to deal with. Tim Westergren, the founder and spokesperson for the company, claims “The rate being too high dramatically depresses how much music gets played.”

Congress’ Internet Radio Fairness Act was first presented in September. It aims to equal the rates of Internet radio companies and cable radio services. And if the bill gets approved, there will be a lot of contemplating on the part of the three judges from the Copyright Royalty Board, as they will need to come up with rates that will not negatively affect the music industry. And that will be quite hard to achieve.

The fair-pay issue has also been acknowledged by music industry labor unions and groups. These groups do want a certain standard to take effect, but they also want rates to remain high. Cary Sherman, chief executive officer of the Recording industry Association of America explains, “This is not just about our present; it is about our future, our ability to make it in the digital age.” He says that “Artists and labels and the entire music community need to earn a fair return on the creative works that are the reason companies like Pandora exist.”

When a person gets injured due to the carelessness of another, it often leads to personal injury claims. One would seek damages which are usually of economic or non-economic nature. Economic damages refer to compensation for the injured party’s losses through fiscal means. Non-economic damages, on the other hand, are related to losses which are not palpable. Included in non-economic damages is pain and suffering, the kind that’s not so easy to measure.

What does pain and suffering damages mean?

Simply put, pain and suffering damages is both the physical and psychological discomfort a person endures from the physical pain and mental anguish caused by an accident, a device malfunction, a slip-and-fall, or medical malpractice. This includes broken bones, depression, mortifying scars, shortened life expectancy, and temporary or permanent disability, among others. And since pain and suffering damages involves things that aren’t necessarily seen by the naked eye, offering up physical evidence is not a prerequisite for the plaintiff to receive compensation. However, when proof suggesting the injured party’s pain and suffering is presented, it makes for a stronger case. The likelihood of being rewarded compensatory damages is much higher.

How does pain and suffering damages get calculated?

Pain and suffering damages is not something that is rewarded as often. It is not easy to deal with as the amount and level of pain and suffering a person experiences will be very challenging to quantify. Because of this difficulty, insurance companies rely on a tool to assist them with determining how much they will be paying to cover a plaintiff’s injuries. There’s really no way for us to come up with accurate numbers, but the most common methods insurance companies use to calculate pain and suffering damages are computer programs. Another method is through multiplying medical expenditures by a certain factor.

What does one need to obtain compensation?

Before anyone is awarded compensation for pain and suffering, there are a few things that need to be done. Detailed accounts of a person’s physical pain and mental discomfort must be recorded daily by keeping journals or writing notes. The written account should contain the type of pain experienced, its location, and how the pain makes you feel. The plaintiff should also collect copies of medical records, patient’s chart, medication prescriptions and other related documents. All these are essential because they have a significant impact on the judge or jury’s decision regarding compensation.

Based on the Washington State Employment Law, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled that Spokane’s 1,200 registered nurses should be entitled to overtime pay if they happen to work during their break time. Because of the court’s decision, several employers are going to have to make themselves more wary of employee rights and overtime provisions in the state.

In the case of the Nurses Association v. Sacred Heart Medical Center, it was held that every time an employee skips his or her rest period, it will be considered as an extension of their working hours. That means that if one nurse on an 8-hour shift skips his or her break period of 25 minutes, then the nurse would have worked 8 hours and 25 minutes that day. And because the nurse worked 25 minutes more than the scheduled 40 hours a week, then he or she is deemed to have worked overtime.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, their decision was also based on a ruling they had made in the Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems Inc. case. It pertained to workers who were robbed of their 10-minute rest period, which is mandated by the state, and so 10 minutes were added to their total hours of work per day. The said Yellow Freight workers claim that they worked for three hours straight without any break periods, which was required of them by the company.

Court documents beg to differ. These documents state that Yellow Freight’s employees have morning and afternoon rest periods, as well as a lunch break. A typical morning at work for their dock workers and hostlers is 2 hours of work, followed by a break of 15 minutes, and they continue working for 1 hour and 45 minutes. These employees are then given a 30-minute unpaid lunch break. In the afternoon, they also work for 2 hours straight, then have a 15-minute break, and again continue working for an hour and 45 minutes.

Since nurses are now entitled to overtime time under state laws, it would be wise for employers to monitor their employees and try to make sure they don’t skip their break periods. But since hospitals are very busy and with nurses coming to check up on their patients every now and then, it will be quite a difficult feat, especially because these nurses don’t have schedule rest periods.

The recent election had brought about a good omen for the gay and lesbian community, and even for advocates of marijuana. But for those who wanted a change in how food products were labeled, or those in support of soda tax, not quite. A vote for Proposition 37, which seeks to label foods that were made with genetically modified organisms (GMO), appeared to be certain in California, up until the opposition had it derailed.

Money, a whopping $46 million that is, played a big role in this loss. “This wasn’t an election so much as a sale,” said Stonyfield Farm founder and Just Label It! campaign chair Gary Hirshberg. Similarly, money was also a factor in the prevention of soda taxes in El Monte and Richmond. Beverage companies outspent advocates by about $3.3 million.

Do the types of food we eat benefit our health or predispose us to a number of health issues? That’s the issue in question – transparency. But what’s making the GMO labeling issue more complicated is that critics believe that pro-labeling parties are taking a position that is quite difficult to substantiate as there have not been proof of harmful substances in the many years that people have been eating food that contain GMOs. Americans are actually cautious of GMOs, only that the issue might bring about transparency in livestock production, a matter which is easier to prove yet harder to come to terms with.

As for the issue in soda taxes, it may prove beneficial in encouraging people to decrease their sugar consumption. But it seems that a lot of people want solid research and proof that excessive intake of sugar leads to a whole bunch of medical problems before they cut down on their intake. And although there are individuals who will tell you that such studies exist, the justification that apparently many people are looking out for is a successful lawsuit; that a plaintiff develops diabetes because of drinking 10 sodas a day, sues the beverage company and is awarded damages, then that will be proof enough.

But look at the Brightside. Despite these issues losing their votes, more and more people have become aware of the efforts towards GMO labeling and imposing taxes on sodas. Advocates may have lost this battle, but the war is far from over. Jeff Ritterman, who is one of those in charge of the campaign in Richmond, foresees the success of a “14 in ‘14” movement where 14 cities will come together in 2014 to outnumber the opposition.

Given the circumstances that one out of five insider trading cases in the US has something to do with healthcare stocks, several companies in the industry maintain that their policies that were framed to prevent abuse are enough to meet the needs of the situation. Either that or they just don’t want to talk about the matter at hand. A number of people have been sued and/or charged by US regulators for insider trading since 2007, and 97 of them benefitted from trading information regarding drugs, medical devices, and their manufacturers. Most drug manufacturers either decline to discuss their policies or decline to make adjustments.

The biotechnology company NPS Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NPSP)’s chief executive officer, Francois Nader, describes to insider trading as “rogue cases from time to time,” an opinion he shares with every other drug company executive that was interviewed. Though who oppose, however, say that, if unresolved, will lead to the decline of investor support. And Bill Singer, who used to work for the American Stock Exchange as a regulatory attorney, doesn’t think that drug-makers are doing everything they can to correct the problem. “The industry isn’t capable or willing to regulate itself,” he says.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY) and Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is only a couple of the many companies that refuse to share the compliance policies. Both of these manufacturers had executives that were sued for insider trading during the last 6 months, as stated in complaints filed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies are quite susceptible to incidents of insider trading due to the various events and people they are connected with. Utpal Bhattacharya, a professor who studies the issue at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business in Bloomington, explains that “the big loser is confidence in the system; no one wants to play a rigged game.”

Another problem is that the relationship between companies and researchers isn’t that solid. Researchers need to be monitored closely by when it comes to their financial ties. Companies must not count on the usual nondisclosure agreements, and they should also stress the legal consequences that could occur once non-public information is passed along.  “Doctors are honorable people with academic credibility whose only interest is public health. But we have the same number of venal criminals as any other occupation,” shares Garret Fitzgerald, the director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Translational Medicine & Therapeutics.

Every kid’s favorite toy store, Toys “R” Us, along with its legal representatives from Sills Cummis and Gross, faced brutal criticism from a state judge last week because of the fact that they utilized litigation as a strategy in negotiations regarding a new lease for their Times Square branch. Last January 2, 2013, Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos, in Manhattan, dismissed the lawsuit that the toy company and its counsel worked hard on to recover the 12 years of property taxes that it had been paying as part of its flagship store lease.

Ramos’s decision stated that the “counsel and their clients are admonished to consider that the citizens of this State pay a considerable sum to finance the operations of the Unified Court System.” He continued by writing that “the record reveals that this action was commenced in the midst of lease renewal negotiations. Litigation, with its expense and uncertainty, has been used from time to time, as part of a negotiating strategy in circumstances similar to this case. If such a strategy was being utilized here, it would represent an abuse of the judicial process and to the taxpayers of this State, to add insult to injury.”

Toys “R” Us claims that the provisions of its lease included a requirement that they pay for signage taxes, which are assessed by the city on its own signs, which exempts the company from paying a commensurate share of its real estate taxes for the entire building. The clause pertaining to the said requirement states that it is exempt from paying taxes on any other tenants’ signs. The company emphasized that the entirety of the building’s real estate taxes were calculated by its total income, including those from other tenants’ signs. That said, having the store pay a commensurate share would mean they are required to pay taxes on other tenants’ signs.

Ramos, however, was not convinced by the said argument. He believes that Toys “R” Us is “conflating income derived from signs with taxes charged by the City.” He goes on to say that “This State’s finances are in a deplorable condition. Its resources are being stretched thin to the point where the needs of its citizens are imperiled. If counsel and their clients in this case are litigating in bad faith, they are depriving others far less well off of a proportionate share of the services the public relies on.”

Amidst the controversy surrounding their accounting methods, Olam, the second largest rice trader in the world, claim to have enough liquidity to overcome market stress. Carson Block, the founder of the small research firm Muddy Waters LLC, began to call their accounts into question, but Olam’s auditor says that the company “is in a sound financial position.” In addition, representatives also say that “the company has sufficient liquidity in place to meet its financial obligations and those that might arise from stress in the capital markets.”

In a letter issued last Thursday which was addressed to the Olam’s board, Ernst & Young LLP, the auditors for the said company, explained that the financial statements they made conform to Singapore’s reporting standards. In their defense, they said, “We stand by our audit opinions on the consolidated financial statements of Olam.” And Chief Executive Officer Sunny Verghese says that this was just some scheme to scare away the company’s shareholders.

It all started at a hedge fund meeting at London in November 19, 2012 when Block oppugned Olam’s accounting methods. The company reacted by filing a lawsuit two days after in a Singapore High Court. They sought unspecified damages and costs, and filed for an injunction to prevent Block’s remarks from being publicized. “The allegations were flying very fast and furious,” says Tito Isaac, the managing partner for Tito Isaac & Co. LLP. He shares that “It was appropriate for them to file the lawsuit as soon as possible.”

Muddy Waters, however, tells Olam through an open letter to executives that “In the two and one-half years Muddy Waters LLC has been openly criticizing publicly-traded companies, we have not seen a response as defensive as yours — not even from Sino-Forest.” Also stated in the letter which was posted in their website, “Olam’s disproportionate reaction is extraordinary in our experience,” and that “Companies that attack criticism the way Olam does fail to understand that raising money from the public is a privilege.”

Sino-Forest was once a target of Muddy Waters’ criticism. The company’s stocks dropped 74 percent, and later, they ended up filing for bankruptcy. As of November 20, after Block’s public critiques against Olam, stocks dropped 7.5 percent and shares fell 1.8 percent. Moreover, companies such as New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., Fushi Copperweld Inc. (FSIN), and Focus Media (FMCN) Holding Ltd. are also being targeted, and Muddy Waters say that they stand by their claims no matter what.

If you’ve had no experience with hiring a lawyer and you’ve just been injured because of someone else’s misdoing, then one of the things you must be concerned about is how much a law firm charges. Personal injury firms to be exact, as they are typically the go-to firms for these kinds of cases.

There are two ways in which personal injury lawyers would usually prefer to receive payment. One is through a contingency plan, wherein you pay your attorney when they’ve managed to obtain proper compensation for your injury. The other is through an hourly rate where you would have to pay them depending on the time they’ve spent working on your case.

Paying Through Contingency Basis

This is the most common way personal injury firms or lawyers use to charge a client for their services. Paying a contingency fee means that a client would have to pay their lawyer a percentage of the funds they’ve received for damages, but you should also clarify whether this percentage is taken from your gross or net rewards.

If the attorney was unsuccessful at reaching a settlement or defending the client’s claim in court, then he or she won’t receive any payment. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the client to pay a firm back for any incurred expenses while the firm was taking on the client’s case.

Paying an Hourly Rate

Some lawyers charge a client for the time they’ve allotted to work on the personal injury case, usually on an hourly basis. The downside with this mode of payment is that the client will have to pay for fees and expenses even though a lawyer is unsuccessful at resolving a case. But do note that once a personal injury lawyer or law firm agrees to handle a case and charge on an hourly rate, this may signal that your case is likely to have a successful outcome.

What Hiring a Personal Injury Firm Will Entail

You should put in mind that, regardless of how they charge for their services, personal injury firms cannot promise you the exact amount of damages or settlement funds you need to cover your injury-related expenditures. There is a chance you would have to pay for injury-related expenses yourself as you need to pay the lawyer’s fee.

While meeting with an attorney or firm, it would be wise to ask them how much your case will cost and what reasonable outcomes you can expect when your case goes to trial. Also ask them how much you would possibly pay for fees and expenses, as well as the amount that would remain once all those are paid off.