Members of a rock band that performed on a Los Angeles freeway and blocked traffic for hours have pleaded not guilty to various charges.
Christopher Wright, David Hale and Keith Yackey entered pleas Wednesday to conspiracy, creating a public nuisance and other crimes. They face up to three years in prison if convicted.

The judge doubled their bail to $20,000 each. Prosecutors say the members of the Orange County band Imperial Stars climbed atop a truck that deliberately stopped on U.S. 101 near Sunset Boulevard in October. The trio performed a song called "Traffic Jam 101."

Outside court, band members told City News Service that the stunt raised awareness for their charitable goal of helping homeless children.

A federal judge has ruled that a class-action lawsuit can be filed against Florida over the sale of personal driver's license information to a private firm.

The lawsuit claims the state, specifically the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, improperly sold about 30 million personal records between 2005 and 2009 to Shadowsoft Inc., an Irving, Texas-based Internet marketer.

Shadowsoft then sold the information to other firms that target consumers.

An attorney representing the drivers told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that the sales violate a federal statute banning the disclosure of personal information from driver's licenses.

Howard Bushman says addresses, dates of birth and possibly Social Security numbers were released.

The judge in Tallahassee ruled earlier this month that affected drivers can become members of the suit.

Copyright 2010 High Plains Broadcasting LLC All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

The Supreme Court will consider whether to keep alive the largest job discrimination case in U.S. history, a lawsuit against Wal-Mart that grew from a half-dozen women to a class action that could involve billions of dollars for more than a half million female workers.

Wal-Mart is trying to halt the lawsuit, with the backing of many other big companies concerned about rules for class-action cases — those in which people with similar interests increase their leverage by joining in a single claim. Class actions against discount seller Costco and the tobacco industry are among pending claims that the high court’s decision might alter.

The suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. contends that women at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores are paid less and promoted less often than men. The case the high court accepted on Monday will not examine whether the claims are true, only whether they can be tried together.

Estimates of the size of the class range from 500,000 to 1.5 million women who work or once worked for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is appealing a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the class-action lawsuit could go to trial.

Tobacco giant Altria Corp., Bank of America Corp., Dole Food Company Inc., General Electric Co., Intel Corp., Pepsico Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. are among the companies that also called for high court review of the case.

The Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide if the largest sex-discrimination class-action lawsuit in U.S. history against Wal-Mart Stores Inc can proceed, a case involving women workers who seek billions of dollars in damages.

The nation's highest court agreed to hear an appeal by the world's largest retailer and the largest private employer arguing the claims of as many as 1.5 million current and former female employees were too diverse to proceed as a single class-action lawsuit.

The justices decided to review a ruling by a appeals court in California that upheld the class-action certification in the lawsuit alleging discrimination against every woman employed over the past decade at the company's 3,400 U.S. stores.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case, which immediately became the most important business dispute before the justices this term, in March, with a ruling likely by the end of June.

The ruling could affect other class-action lawsuits. Anthony Sabino, a professor of law and business at St. John's University in New York, said the case "will test the very limits of class litigation."

Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart said in a statement it was pleased the court granted review in the important case and it looked forward to the court's consideration of the appeal.

For two years, the two sons of jailed financier Bernard Madoff portrayed themselves as honest whistleblowers of their father's historic fraud. A court-appointed trustee depicted them as bungling money managers who did nothing to protect investors.

The suicide of Mark Madoff leaves unanswered questions for investors seeking payback for the billions of dollars his father siphoned — and for criminal investigators who continued to pursue charging Madoff's family for knowing participation in the fraud.

The 46-year-old Madoff — Bernard Madoff's eldest son — hanged himself Saturday by a dog leash on a metal ceiling beam in his Manhattan loft apartment, his 2-year-old son asleep in another room. The death was officially ruled a suicide by hanging Sunday by the city medical examiner.

He died on the anniversary of his father's arrest two years ago in the largest Ponzi scheme ever recorded. It followed the filing in recent weeks of dozens of lawsuits by trustee Irving Picard as he pursued billions of dollars in damages against those who profited from the multi-decade fraud.

Increasingly, Picard has stepped up his language in lawsuits against those who knew Madoff well, describing an Austrian banker accused in a lawsuit Friday of being Madoff's "criminal soul mate" in her efforts on behalf of Madoff's fraud.

Last Wednesday, he included the brothers as defendants in an $80 million lawsuit he brought against the London-based international arm of Madoff's business, saying the overseas operation was used to siphon off money from the fraud for the Madoff family.

The Supreme Court will not get involved in a New York dispute over whether officials can curb some law firm television commercials.

The high court refused to hear an appeal from New York officials who passed rules that would curb some television commercials from local law firms.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down much of the state's proposed regulations, which included bans on client testimonials or paid endorsements, and nicknames, mottos or trade names that suggest an ability to obtain results.

Personal injury firm Alexander & Catalano and advocacy group Public Citizen Inc. challenged the rules.

The firm wanted to be known as "The Heavy Hitters" but abandoned the motto for fear of running afoul of the new rules.