Will Ferrell Loses Securities Dispute: JP Morgan Accused of Engaging in Unauthorized, Unsuitable Purchases of Preferred Securities

Will Ferrell loses his securities dispute with JP Morgan. Will Ferrell accused the firm of engaging in “unauthorized and unsuitable purchases of preferred securities.” The actor must pay $600,000 in legal fees and costs to JP Morgan following his loss. Looks like it’s a double blow to Ferrell who will be out even more money than before! Ouch!

Will Ferrell was not the only investor suing JP Morgan. He was one of several investors who wanted the firm to rescind their purchase of $18 million in preferred securities. A Finra panel disagreed with Will’s claims and instead ordered Ferrell, his wife, Viveca Paulin, and the other investors to pay JP Morgan’s $600,000 legal fees as well an additional $22,500 for “discovery abuse.”

Will Ferrell is no doubt upset over his loss. There’s little that can be done now and it is unfortunate Will lost so many money but the Finra panel isn’t divulging any more information about the case. Whatever was revealed during the trial will be unknown to us but imagine how it must sting to sue for $18 million only to be slapped with $622,500 in fines later. Major ouch!

Naked Sleepwalker Libel Case Record Award: $17M goes to Donal Kinsella

The Naked sleepwalker libel case has resulted in a record award for Irish mining exec, Donal Kinsella.  The 67-year-old Kinsella was recently awarded $17 million for an incident involving naked sleepwalking during a business trip.  His employer was shocked at the amount given to the man who had been walking around naked near a co-workers room!

According to Yahoo News of Australia, the lawsuit was initiated by Donal Kinsella against his employer Kenmare Resources.  Apparently during a business trip, Kinsella was found sleepwalking in the naked, coincidentally near his co-worker Dierdre Corcoran's room.  The company released a press statement after the incident which alleged Kinsella had been making sexual advances toward the female co-worker.

In his defense, Donal had been a bit under the influence at the time, as he was taking painkillers and had been drinking alcohol.  After an investigation of the incident, it was determined that he had not tried to enter Corcoran's room, and had not acted in any inappropriate manners, beyond walking around naked.  They also claim that Kinsella regularly sleepwalks in the naked.

Kinsella reported he felt "exhilirated and vindicated," not by sleepwalking in naked, but by the massive amoung he was awarded.  That record award is five times the previous highest Irish libel case amount.  Kenmare was shocked by the judgment saying the award was off the Richter scale.  They will be appealing this decision, but in the meantime they are ordered to pay out $875,000 to Kinsella for the libelous press release they issued.

Does this sound like one bizarre case and award or what?  It almost makes it seem like co-workers could get away with "hanky panky" on business trips just by claiming they sleepwalk naked. Expect the naked sleepwalking defense to start popping up all over courts around the globe!

Plastic Surgeon Sues Own Patients: Is Defamation Possible on Yelp?

A Chicago plastic surgeon, Dr. Jay Pensler, is suing his former patients for defamation after they posted bad reviews of his work on Yelp and Citysearch. Is that the scent of the easily offended on the air, or is it just old silicone?

Carol Oshana, the lawyer representing one of the plastic surgeon's former patients who is being sued, says Dr. Pensler ruined her client's body. "Her breasts look terrible. I mean, I hate the way she looks. She looks so bad," AOL News quoted Oshana as saying.

She said the suit's likely to be dismissed, but not before legal fees pile up on both sides. Countersuing does exist, but who'd want to after that long? If they lose on a technicality, that'd be even more fees.

Dr. Pensler insists he's being lied about. While photographs of the women's post-surgery scars hve been made public, Pensler's attorney, Mitchell Marinello, says they have been doctored. Surprise, surprise, he's blaming Photoshop.

The photographs are only part of the story from the plastic surgeon's former patients. They're being sued for posting multiple accounts of problems with Dr. Pensler's work.

When Oshana says her client's breasts look terrible, she may not be kidding at all. More than one of his clients said they hate the way theirs look, and it's just as bad as the photos. One review on Citysearch said "...I had Frankenstein breasts with the nipples placed too high." Another said, "...my areolas look like a drawstring purse."

The publicly available photographs of some of his former clients' post-surgery scars being doctored seems pretty unlikely, whatever Mitchell Marinello may want to say. It'd take several people with a large grudge to risk being publicly identified as liars to put together that many bad reviews.

And if bad reviews are defamation, as Pensler is insisting by suing his former patients, what will that mean to restaurants with crappy food? This could go very bad places if he wins.

Doctor Sues Restaurant Over Artichoke - Arturo Carvajal Blames Houston's Restaurant Chain for Severe Pain After Eating Entire Vegetable

A doctor sued a restaurant over an artichoke! Dr. Arturo Carvajal ate an entire artichoke at Houston's in North Miami. Carvajal sued the restaurant claiming wait staff didn't show him the proper way to eat the vegetable. Because of that, Carvajal experienced severe pain afterwards. Dr. Arturo said he had never eaten an artichoke and thought eating the entire vegetable, thistle and all, was the norm!

Carvajal was taken to a hospital where doctors discovered artichoke leaves had lodged within his bowels. Ouch! Needless to say, Carvajal sued the Beverly Hills restaurant chain, Hillstone Restaurant Group, for emotional and physical damages sustained by the ordeal.

In his compliant, Carvajal stated that in his native country of Cuba, it's customary to eat everything on one's plate. When he ordered the artichoke, did he tell the wait staff that he did not know the proper way to eat the vegetable? Perhaps it was his mistake in not telling the wait staff of his ignorance to artichokes. If he ordered it, one would assume he knew how to eat it!

Too bad for him, it's highly doubtful his artichoke lawsuit could win. What do you think about this case?

Convicted Connecticut Drunk Driver Sues Victim's Parents From Prison - Why?

A convicted drunk driver sues the victim’s parents. The Connecticut man struck and killed a 14-year-old boy on a bicycle in 2007, and he has decided to add insult to injury by suing Matthew Kenney’s parents over the fact that the boy was not wearing a helmet!

How can a Convicted Drunk Driver Sue Victim's Parents From Behind Bars?

Where does David Weaving, 48, get off suing his victim’s parents? This is unbelievable. Right now Weaving is serving a 10 year sentence for manslaughter and other charges. His lawsuit alleges that Joanne and Stephen Kenney are responsible for Matthew’s death. What about the irresponsible driver who hit the teen? That had nothing to do with it?

Weaving had 4 previous drunk driving convictions, and he was not even charged with it in the case of running over Matthew. According to court records, Weaving was passing a car at over 80 miles per hour in a 45 mph zone when he struck and killed Matthew in 2007. His lawsuit was handwritten, and it said that he was wrongfully imprisoned, sufferend mental anguish, and no longer able to carry on his life's activities. It is shocking that the suit was accepted and that Weaving had the nerve to file it.

This lawsuit is unbelievable! Apparently it is in response to a lawsuit by the Kenneys that claim Weaving is negligent in their son’s death. Who in their right mind would sue their victim’s parents like this? It makes no sense, and perhaps it shouldn’t even be allowed. The Kenneys have said that the outlandish suit has caused them pain. A drunk driver should not sue the victim’s parents. Sure Matthew should have been wearing a helmet, but Weaving should have obeyed the laws.

Mayor Vetoes Toy Ban in Kid’s Meals at Fast-Food Restaurants

Mayor Gavin Newsom has vetoed a law that would ban toys from being included with kid’s meals at fast-food restaurants. He vetoed the ban on Friday.

Kids – and likely parents – will likely be rejoicing throughout San Francisco. Sometimes the promise of a toy can be the only way to entice a stubborn child to eat, not that that should necessarily be applauded.

The idea, apparently, is that the law would ban toys from being sold in meals that did not meet a strict set of nutritional standards of reduced calories, salt, fat and sugar – and also contain fruits and vegetables.

While it does seem like a good idea to reward children for eating healthy, is it really fair to only include them in such meals? To ban a toy from a meal not meeting those requirements seems an unnecessary form of punishment.

However, despite the mayor’s opposition, the law may still be put into effect. According to the San Francisco Gate, the Board passed the law on an 8-3 vote Tuesday. Unfortunately for kids, this is enough to override the mayor’s veto.

The boards’ goal upon inflicting this law is to help conquer childhood obesity.

While it seems like a noble goal, it would not be surprising for parents to purchase the healthy meal with a toy, and also the meal the kid wants to eat. All they have to do is eat the healthy meal themselves and they can still provide their child with a toy, so it is doubtful that the law would even have much of an effect.

Newsom called the intent laudable but imprudent. "There are times when a city can go too far. There's a time when we even cross the line," he said.

"Doing these types of toy bans is inappropriate, I don't think particularly effective, and I just think goes way too far in inserting government to try to be the decision-maker in someone's life as opposed to parents," the mayor said.

He’s makes an excellent point. While the government should make healthy food readily available as a selection, ultimately it should be up to the parent – not the government – what to feed their child. Unless, of course, the government would like to foot the bill completely for feeding kids – then, perhaps, the ban would be more effective. This is highly unlikely to ever happen, though.

"We want to give restaurants an incentive to provide more healthy options, and the fast-food industry has to be held accountable," said Supervisor Eric Mar, chief sponsor of the legislation that was modeled after a similar law in Santa Clara County.

McDonald's, the world's largest restaurant chain, said Newsom's view is consistent with public opinion that parents - not the government - should decide what's right for their children. Currently McDonald’s meals which offer toys do not meet the requirements.

If passed, the toy ban would become effective in December 2011.