The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to intervene in the Oklahoma lawsuit on behalf of HP. The case now goes back to an Oklahoma state court.

In 2005, the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, allowed the Grider lawsuit to become a nationwide class-action lawsuit. HP had appealed that decision.

Since 2000, several U.S. residents have filed similar lawsuits against Compaq and HP. The lawsuits alleged that Compaq sold computers with faulty floppy disk controllers, causing data loss or corruption.

The Texas Supreme Court in 2005 refused to allow a nationwide class-action lawsuit in a case that had been filed in the state in 2000. HP had argued that the facts in the Oklahoma case were similar.

An HP spokesman wasn't immediately available for comment Tuesday.

The two conservative justices subjected a lawyer for corporate investors to tough questioning during arguments as the justices try to set boundaries in stockholder lawsuits for securities fraud.

Investors in Charter Communications Inc., one of the country's largest cable TV companies, are suing two suppliers that allegedly schemed with Charter executives to mislead stockholders about the company's revenue growth.

The outcome of the case will determine the fate of a separate suit by Enron shareholders who are seeking over $30 billion from banks accused of colluding with the energy company to hide its debts.

If the court rules against investors, "it will mean the end of the case" for Enron shareholders and the banks that were primarily liable, attorney Patrick Coughlin, representing Enron stockholders, said outside the Supreme Court after the arguments.

In the case before the court, suppliers Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola Inc. "were not passive bystanders facilitating a fraud by Charter," said investor attorney Stanley Grossman. "Their deceptive conduct was integral to the scheme to create fictitious advertising revenues for Charter to report to investors."

Why shouldn't the court be guided by its 1994 ruling that sharply restricted liability by saying investors cannot sue for aiding and abetting a securities fraud? the chief justice asked. "You're asking us to extend that liability."

Outside the courthouse later, Grossman said, "We are not asking for an expansion. The other side is asking for a cutback."

Earlier this year, Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate when the court decided to hear the case. On Tuesday, Roberts was back, but Breyer was still out. As of last year, both owned stock in Cisco Systems Inc., which now owns Scientific-Atlanta.

Though the absence of Breyer means the case could end up deadlocked 4-4, the hour of arguments Tuesday seemed to weigh against investors.

Scalia suggested that the court might "sensibly limit" the right to sue so that schemes can be attacked by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but not by investors' lawsuits. That is how aiding and abetting violations are handled.

"What distinguishes the liability that you propose from aider and abettor liability?" asked Scalia.

Stephen Shapiro, the attorney representing Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola, said the lawsuit cannot proceed against the two suppliers unless they made misstatements to Charter's investors, prompting an objection from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Under the theory of Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola, "they are home free because they didn't themselves make any statement," said Ginsburg. "But they set up Charter to make those statements, to swell its revenues — revenues that it in fact didn't have."

Charter persuaded the two suppliers to buy advertising that was bankrolled with money from Charter, which paid a $20 premium on each of hundreds of thousands of cable TV set-top boxes, for a total of $17 million. The amount of the overpayments equaled the amount the two suppliers paid for the advertising.

Charter reported the advertising payments as revenue, a step that helped Charter paint a rosy financial picture for the fourth quarter of 2000, a move designed to artificially inflate the price of the stock.

El-Masri was released in 2004 after he says U.S. officials realized he was not involved with terrorism.

The Bush administration argued that el-Masri's appeal should be rejected because allowing his lawsuit against the CIA suit to go forward in court would expose state secrets. Lower federal courts sided with the government and the Supreme Court effectively ended the case when it refused to consider it further.

El-Masri's case sparked outrage in Germany and mobilized civil and human rights groups on his behalf.

Sharon Bradford Franklin is an attorney with the Constitution Project, an organization that seeks to protect civil liberties during the war on terror.

"Well, we are very disappointed that the court decided not to take the case," said Franklin. "We really felt that this was an excellent opportunity for the court to revisit the scope of the state secrets privilege."

The Supreme Court formally recognized the government's right to protect state secrets in a 1953 ruling that allowed the U.S. military to keep secret the details of a plane crash.

The el-Masri case also drew attention to the CIA program of what is called extraordinary rendition in which terror suspects are sent from one country to another for questioning.

Human-rights groups have criticized the program and raised questions about the torture of terror suspects. They had hoped the el-Masri case would shed new light on the practice.

"The Bush administration has used what is known as the state secrets doctrine liberally to seek dismissals of cases that raise embarrassing issues for the government and perhaps would expose illegal activity," said Jennifer Daskal with Human Rights Watch.

The Supreme Court decision was welcomed at the White House. This is presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"This is a country that is facing unprecedented threats that we have not dealt with before in terms of al-Qaida and other terrorists, and I believe that the Justice Department is judicious in applying the state secrets act," said Perino.

President Bush has repeatedly defended the administration's policies in the war on terror and just last week again rejected allegations that terror suspects are subject to torture.

"This government does not torture people," he said. "We stick to U.S. law and our international obligations."

Germany tried to extradite 13 suspected CIA agents to stand trial in the el-Masri case earlier this year but was rebuffed by the United States.

Sallie Mae's lawsuit seeks a declaration that the buyer group has reneged on the merger agreement, that no "material adverse change" has occurred, and that Sallie Mae may terminate the takeover and collect the $900 million.

A material adverse change is a condition that could cause a substantial reduction in earnings power and it can give buyers or lenders a "walk right" from their obligations.

The lawsuit is being seen by many as a hard-ball attempt by Sallie Mae to force the buyer group to stick to the original deal, in which the group offered $60 a share, or come up with something closer to it than its revised proposal of $50 a share, or $20.6 billion offer, plus extra payments depending on how the company performed.

"We are prepared to close under the contract the parties signed in April," said Sallie Mae chairman Albert Lord in a statement late on Monday. "Sallie Mae has honored its obligations under the merger agreement. We ask only that the buyer group do the same."

The original buyout agreement has a $900 million breakup fee. But if the buyers could prove the student lender has suffered a material adverse change, they would not have to pay it.

J.C. Flowers & Co said on Tuesday their revised buyout offer has expired and that the future of deal would be resolved in court.

"We regret that our offer to amend the terms of the Sallie Mae transaction was allowed to expire without discussion," J.C. Flowers said in a statement. "Instead, Sallie Mae filed what we firmly believe is a meritless lawsuit. We now look forward to having this matter resolved in the Delaware Chancery Court."

J.C. Flowers repeated its stance that a material adverse change has occurred and that Sallie Mae has misinterpreted the merger contract.

Joel Greenberg, co-chair of law firm Kaye Scholer LLP's corporate and finance department, said it would be difficult for J.C. Flowers to argue there has been a material adverse change, because the contract specifically addressed the question of new legislation.

"Is it so substantially worse than the company predicted that it is a material adverse change? It's a very hard argument," Greenberg added.

Bingham McCutchen LLP, a 1,000-lawyer U.S. firm with offices in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong, and New Tokyo International Law Office, a premier insolvency, corporate and litigation firm with 22 lawyers, have officially combined operations in Tokyo and moved into expanded office space, creating a significant presence in Japan for Bingham.

The combination increases the number of lawyers in Bingham’s Tokyo office to more than 50 Japanese lawyers (bengoshi) and six foreign lawyers. The addition of New Tokyo, founded by Mitsue Aizawa and Yutaka Kimura, expands Bingham’s on-the-ground capacity in Asia and further bolsters its renowned cross-border restructuring and insolvency practice. The New Tokyo deal is Bingham’s second in Japan for 2007. Earlier this year, Bingham combined with another leading restructuring firm, Sakai & Mimura, founded by Hideyuki Sakai, with approximately 20 Japanese lawyers.

"Our strategy has always been to focus on where our clients need -- or will need -- top-notch legal talent," said Bingham Chairman Jay Zimmerman. "By building upon our key practices of insolvency, securities and financial services in Japan, we are positioning ourselves to be the ‘go-to law firm’ for financial institutions investing in Japan and in major economic markets worldwide." Bingham also opened a Hong Kong office in 2007 and has offices in key financial centers around the globe, including London and New York.

The addition of the New Tokyo firm will also expand and build upon Bingham’s finance and corporate practice, representing major corporations, insurance companies and investment banks.

The deal also benefits clients of the legacy New Tokyo firm. Aizawa noted that these clients are increasingly thinking of overseas strategies. "The fit with Bingham is complementary in every sense," she said. "We wanted to be able to provide our clients the global backup they need while Bingham wanted to build in Tokyo for their clientele. Together, we are increasing our ability to provide one-stop services in the corporate and compliance areas. Moreover, our depth of practice in insolvency and the insurance area, combined with Bingham’s insolvency proficiency, gives us tremendous strength."

The addition of the New Tokyo firm, with its 22 Japanese lawyers, and the pending arrival of 10 new Japanese lawyers to Bingham’s Tokyo office later this year, will bring Bingham’s number of bengoshi to nearly 60, among the highest for foreign law firms in Japan. In addition, Bingham’s Japanese Practice, with its 50 lawyers outside of Japan, focuses on large-scale, cross-border financial restructurings, corporate/M&A and finance matters, and has significant intellectual property, antitrust and litigation strengths.

http://www.bingham.com