A tentative $9 million settlement with Bank of Hawaii requires the bank to pay each of its customers who had more than one overdraft fee in a day over the last five years.

Bank of Hawaii, the state's second-largest bank, reached the class-action lawsuit settlement in response to claims that the bank improperly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported Tuesday.

The lawsuit accused the bank of systematically re-ordering debit card transactions from highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount, a practice that allowed the bank to deplete customers' available funds as quickly as possible while maximizing the number of overdraft fees.

The $9 million will be put in a settlement fund used to refund customers and pay attorneys' fees, administrative and other costs in exchange for a complete release of all claims against the company, the bank said. It's unclear how many Bank of Hawaii customers are eligible for refunds.

Similar lawsuits against American Savings Bank and Central Pacific Bank, the state's third- and fourth-largest banks, also are pending.

In a blow to thousands of hopeful would-be immigrants who had been told they'd won a chance to apply for a green card, a federal judge ruled that the State Department can toss out the results of its May visa lottery, which were deemed invalid because of a computer error.

The State Department said the results of a fresh drawing would be available Friday.

Members of the group had been seeking class action status in their bid to stop the government from nullifying their selection in the visa lottery.

In early May, about 22,000 people were notified they had won a chance to apply for a visa as part of the Diversity Visa Lottery Program, which is aimed at increasing the number of immigrants from the developing world and countries with historically low rates of emigration to the U.S.

One of them, 42-year-old French native Armande Gil, who lives in Florida, called Thursday's decision by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson another disappointment.

An Arizona appeals court has vacated what was perhaps one of the highest bail amounts on record in U.S. history that had been set for a father accused of sexually abusing his children.

The brief order issued last week sends the case back to Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Tina Ainley to reset the $75 million cash-only bond for the longtime Sedona resident. She has scheduled a Monday status conference.

The defendant's attorney, Bruce Griffen, sought relief from the appellate court after he tried unsuccessfully to have the case assigned to another trial court judge.

Griffen accused Ainley of abusing her discretion, and exhibiting bias and prejudice.

Prosecutors say those accusations were not proven. They contend the defendant has significant family ties in Brazil and is a flight risk.

The appellate court said Ainley cannot set a bail amount greater than what is necessary to ensure the defendant appears at trial, and can set other release conditions. The court is expected to elaborate on its decision but had not done so as of Friday.

A law firm will be appointed to collect about $35 million in forfeited bonds owed to Dallas County.

District Attorney Craig Watkins said Wednesday that a law firm, to be selected later, will get to keep 25 percent of the amount collected.

A recent local newspaper review found that many of the uncollected defaulted judgments date back decades. The newspaper reports that Dallas County has been hampered by outdated computers, poor oversight and lack of coordination among departments.

Defendants post bond to get out of jail, paying bondsmen usually 10 percent of the amount set by a judge. If the person doesn’t show up for court, a warrant is issued and the bond is forfeited.

The review found many companies failed to pay Dallas County the full amount.

An Orange County judge said Tuesday that she will issue a court order to restrict Costa Mesa from laying off nearly half of the city's workforce and outsourcing jobs.

Superior Court Judge Tam Nomoto Schumann said she would grant the Orange County Employees Association's request for a preliminary injunction. But the city has until Friday to file objections before she issues her ruling.

The union filed suit in May, arguing that the city's plan to outsource municipal jobs violates state law and the union contract.

In March, the Costa Mesa City Council majority voted to outsource jobs to mostly private companies in a drastic move to plug a $15 million budget hole.

Soon afterward, 213 of 450 employees got layoff notices that would take effect in September.

Union spokeswoman Jennifer Muir said the court order would protect employees' jobs until the case against the city goes to trial.

Schumann said the city must follow proper procedures when laying off workers, but she didn't explain what those procedures are.

Assistant City Attorney Harold Potter contends the city has been following procedures while pursuing austerity measures.

The judge's ruling won't stop the city from exploring outsourcing options, he said.

A billion-dollar "technical revision" added to a patent bill passed by the House last week could provide huge financial benefits to one pharmaceutical company and a law firm.

On the surface, the barely noticed amendment simply clarifies a process by which the Food and Drug Administration approves a patent for a brand-name drug, and gives the manufacturer 60 days to apply for an extension with the U.S. Patent and Trade Office.

In reality, the measure could give a New Jersey drugmaker, The Medicines Co., 2½ more years of patent protection for its lucrative blood thinner Angiomax. It would also save the law firm WilmerHale $214 million it would owe the drug company under a malpractice lawsuit if a generic alternative is sold in the United States before June 15, 2015.

The amendment barely won House approval and it is not a part of the Senate version of the patent system overhaul bill, so it is questionable whether it will ever become law. The amendment would write into law a court decision in favor of the drug company and would pre-empt any appeal.

It shows how, hidden behind the lines of obtuse legislative language, huge fortunes can be at stake, sometimes for specific companies.