Pearson also called himself as a witness, saying his problems began in May 2005 when he brought in several suits for alterations. A pair of pants from a blue and maroon suit was missing when he requested it two days later. He said Soo Chung tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants.

As Pearson explained that those weren't the pants for the suit, he choked up and left the courtroom crying after asking Bartnoff for a break.

Pearson originally asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit, which was more than $1,000. But because the Chungs insisted the pants had been found, they refused to pay.

Manning has said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson, but the judge was not satisfied and increased his demands — including asking for money to rent a car so he could drive to another business.

The Colgate-Palmolive announcement comes less than two weeks after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned consumers to avoid any toothpaste made in China after inspectors found DEG in tubes sold at two stores.

Colgate-Palmolive said the counterfeit toothpaste was found in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland. It can be recognized because it is labeled as being manufactured in South Africa, and the company does not import toothpaste to the United States from South Africa.

The packaging also contains several misspellings, Colgate said. It said it is working with the FDA to help to identify those responsible for the counterfeit product.

DEG-contaminated toothpaste has also been seized in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Panama and Nicaragua. It was also found in cough syrup in Panama that led to the deaths of at least 100 people last year.

The FDA issued its alert about Chinese toothpaste after seizing a batch of Cooldent found to contain 3% DEG. Inspectors found the toothpaste at a Dollar Plus store in Miami and at a store called Todo a Peso in Puerto Rico.

Brands seized earlier included Cooldent, Clean Rite and Oralmax that are usually found at discount retailers, the agency said.

The FDA identified products by Goldcredit International Enterprises, Goldcredit International Trading Co. and Suzhou City Jinmao Daily Chemicals Co as containing DEG.

Goldcredit International Enterprises is a unit of JiangsuXingda Stationery Group, a manufacturer of glue and office supplies. Suzhou City Jinmao Daily Chemicals also makes soap and pet products.

The case involved the city's efforts to collect $16.4 million in unpaid property taxes and interest from India and $2.1 million from Mongolia for their missions at the United Nations.

Under New York law, foreign governments have tax exemptions for the diplomatic mission section of their properties used exclusively for diplomatic offices and for the quarters of certain diplomats.

But the city says the government must pay taxes for the space that houses lower-level employees. The two governments refused to pay the taxes and the city sued. The foreign governments sought to dismiss the lawsuits.

Justice Clarence Thomas concluded in the court's majority opinion that the two foreign governments are not immune from the lawsuits under a 1976 federal law, a decision that allows the cases to go forward.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented. "If Congress had intended the statute to waive sovereign immunity in tax litigation, I think it would have said so," Stevens wrote.

The three banks involved are Merrill Lynch, Barclays and Credit Suisse First Boston.

In April, the university filed a petition along with the other plaintiffs asking that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the appeal. On Monday, the university filed a brief asking that the court hear the appeal at the same time as another case that also grappled with the degree of responsibility for secondary actors like the banks.

Enron Corporation was found to have committed investor fraud in 2001 and then collapsed.

The university alleges that banks knew of the fraud and should now be held responsible for their role in Enron’s investor fraud.

The total alleged loss for all plaintiffs involved is estimated at $40 billion, Davis said.

According to Davis, the university lost approximately $145 million in investments as a result of the fraud and collapse.

The 50,000 plaintiffs include both individual and institutional investors, although Davis said the university was one of the pension funds with substantial losses.

The case had been heard in March by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; that court ruled in favor of the banks in a 2-1 vote.

The idea of holding banks responsible for their part in the Enron scandal would bring into question the concept of scheme liability.

Scheme liability envisions fraudulent practices involving additional parties who actively and knowingly participate in the fraud, Davis said.

“We’re alleging that banks knew what they were doing and did what they did to perpetuate the fraud,” Davis said. “Scheme liability means banks were part of the scheme as opposed to just being innocent bystanders.”

While three banks currently remain as defendents, Davis said a number of other banks that had been involved in the case have settled for a total of approximately $7 billion out of court.

If the Supreme Court decides in the university’s favor, Davis said the remaining three banks could have the option to settle out of court as well.

Davis said he did not know when the Supreme Court is expected to respond or what the next steps will be for the case, adding that the university hopes the plaintiffs will get the chance to go to trial.

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of a convicted murderer from Ohio Thursday because he filed it two days late, even though he met a separate deadline set by a judge.

The judge mistakenly told the prisoner, Keith Bowles, 34, that he could file court papers by Feb. 27, 2004. Under federal rules, however, the deadline was Feb. 24. Bowles filed on Feb. 26.

The high court typically adheres strictly to deadlines and this case was no exception.

The 5-4 decision, the 16th this term, fell along conservative-liberal lines and also provoked a strong dissent from Justice David Souter.

Writing the opinion for the court's majority in this case, Justice Clarence Thomas said the judge's error did not alter the 14-day time limit set in federal law and legal rules. He said Congress could relax the deadline if it wishes.

Bowles was convicted of murder in Ohio for his role in a group beating of an unarmed man, who later died. The beating was in revenge for an earlier beating that day to a relative of a member of the group in Painesville, about 30 miles northeast of Cleveland, court records showed.

Bowles was given 15 years to life in prison. Early in 2004, a federal judge gave Bowles additional time to tell the court he intended to appeal, mistakenly noting a 17-day deadline.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Bowles' appeal was untimely.

Souter said Bowles' case cries out for an exception to the rule.

"It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch," Souter said.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia joined Thomas' opinion.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens joined Souter in dissent.

Specialty chemicals maker Cabot Corp. said Wednesday it agreed to settle the federal class action lawsuits pending against it that alleged it and other carbon black manufacturers violated antitrust laws in setting prices for carbon black sold in the United States.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Cabot said its share of the settlement cost is $10 million. Cabot also denied any wrongdoing of any kind, and said it "strongly believes that it has good defenses to these claims."

The company said it agreed to the settlement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, risk and the distraction of protracted litigation.

The settlement agreement is subject to court approval.

Boston-based Cabot said it will continue to defend the remaining antitrust lawsuits pending against it. There are suits pending in several state courts brought by purported classes of purchasers of carbon black, and a single federal case brought by a party that did not join the federal class action.