A seemingly divided Supreme Court on Monday weighed a potentially costly challenge to the pharmaceutical industry's practice of not paying overtime to its sales representatives.

The justices questioned whether the federal law governing overtime pay should apply to the roughly 90,000 people who try to persuade doctors to prescribe certain drugs to their patients.

Many sales jobs are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But unlike typical salespeople who often work on commission, pharmaceutical sales representatives cannot seal a deal with doctors. Federal law, in fact, forbids any binding agreement by a doctor to prescribe a specific drug.

Two salesmen who once worked for drug maker GlaxoSmithKline filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that they were not paid for the 10 to 20 hours they worked each week on average outside the normal business day. Their jobs required them to meet with doctors in their offices, but also to attend conventions, dinners, even golf outings.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among several justices who wondered about limits on overtime opportunities if the court were to rule for the sales reps. A court filing by the industry said drug companies could be on the hook for billions of dollars in past overtime.

Plea bargain negotiations between criminals and prosecutors will now come under constitutional scrutiny because a divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that convictions can be overturned if defense lawyers don't adequately assist clients in deciding whether to accept such offers.

The court's decision could affect nearly every criminal case in the United States, where more than 9 in 10 convictions come by guilty pleas.

In a rare move justices use to underscore their objections, Justice Antonin Scalia read his dissent aloud from the bench. He said the court's decision "upends decades of our cases ... and opens a whole new boutique of constitutional jurisprudence" — plea bargaining law — even though there is no legal right to be offered a plea bargain.

"In the United States, we have plea bargaining a plenty, but until today, it has been regarded as a necessary evil," said Scalia, who was on the losing side of two 5-4 decisions on the issue. "...Today, however, the Supreme Court elevates plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement. It is no longer a somewhat embarrassing adjunct to our criminal justice system; rather as the court announces ... 'it is the criminal justice system.'"

The two majority opinions, both written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, have potentially broad impact because 97 percent of federal convictions and 94 percent of state convictions in 2009 were obtained by a guilty plea, according to the Justice Department.

The rulings crafted by Kennedy mean that criminal defense lawyers are now required to inform their clients of plea bargain offers, regardless of whether they think the client should accept them, and must give their clients good advice on whether to accept a plea bargain at all stages of prosecution. If they don't, Kennedy said, they will run afoul of the Sixth Amendment guarantee that criminal defendants have a right to assistance of counsel.

The Supreme Court indicated Monday that it could throw out an $18 million penalty against a natural gas company convicted of an environmental violation in Rhode Island.

In arguments at the high court, several justices sounded skeptical of the government's case for upholding the penalty against Texas-based Southern Union Co. over its improper storage of mercury in a building in Pawtucket.

The arguments focused on whether a line of Supreme Court cases limiting judges' discretion to increase prison sentences also should apply to criminal fines, as Southern Union says.

The Obama administration says judges have much more discretion to hand out fines.

Unlike other Supreme Court disputes involving corporations, this case does not appear to divide the justices along ideological lines. In the sentencing cases, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has been the most forceful advocate for reining in judges and requiring juries to find any facts that could lead to a longer sentence.

Scalia said he sees the Southern Union case as a logical extension of the court's earlier rulings. He said it would be odd to require a jury to establish facts that lead to even the shortest jail term, yet give judges freedom to decide on fines that "will make a pauper of you."

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of First Solar Inc. between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

First Solar engages in the design, manufacture and sale of thin-film semiconductor solar modules and photovoltaic solar power systems in the United States and internationally. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose: (1) the full impact of certain solar module manufacturing flaws on the Company’s earnings; (2) that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue concerning certain products in its systems business; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4), as a result of the foregoing, that the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased First Solar securities between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, you have certain rights, and have until May 14, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, Toll Free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

A federal judge planned to hear Thursday whether former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards would create problems for his upcoming trial by hiring lawyers who represented his mistress in a lawsuit over the couple's alleged sex tape.

The hearing scheduled in Greensboro aims to air whether lawyers Alan Duncan and Allison Van Laningham could use insider knowledge of Edwards' mistress Rielle Hunter at the former presidential candidate's trial beginning next month.

Duncan and Van Laningham represented Hunter in a lawsuit that ended last month with a settlement that ordered all copies of the tape destroyed.

Federal prosecutors have said they'll likely call Hunter as a witness at Edwards' trial on campaign finance charges that he used nearly $1 million from two wealthy donors to hide the pregnant Hunter as he sought the White House in 2008. He has pleaded not guilty.

"To whom would Mr. Duncan's and Ms. Van Laningham's allegiance lie? Their new client or the one they represented as recently as two weeks ago in a lawsuit seeking to enforce those very privacy rights?" federal prosecutors said in a court filing last week.

Because of their previous attorney-client relationship with Hunter, Duncan and Van Laningham might take it easy on her if they were questioning Hunter under oath, prosecutors said.

We have an extensive track record of successful engagements that can be matched by few firms of our size. With a dedicated focus on the financial services arena, we represent broker-dealers, registered representatives and other industry participants in a broad spectrum of securities disputes in court and in FINRA arbitration. Our principal attorney has handled approximately 200 FINRA arbitrations and has a lengthy record of success in those matters that have been tried to verdict.

Securities Litigation and Arbitration

Our clients have entrusted us to litigate sales practice disputes of virtually every type, encompassing a wide variety of products. As a small law firm, we are free from the conflicts faced by many larger law firms. This flexibility enables us to represent investors with substantial claims, along with claims in which one broker-dealer is adverse to another. Our founding partner is a certified arbitrator for FINRA and the NFA and formerly served as in-house counsel for an NYSE-member broker-dealer. This in-the-trenches experience provides unique insight to our advocacy.

Herskovits Law is a New York based law firm and has expertise in defending clients facing allegations of market manipulation and assorted FINRA rule violations. Their experience consistently guides their approach to successfully help fight for the rights of the victims of industry allegations.