South Carolina's Supreme Court has agreed take a case challenging the state's authority to conduct the GOP's first-in-the-South presidential primary in January.

Papers are due in court next week.

Beaufort, Chester, Greenville and Spartanburg counties says the state Election Commission lacks the authority to run the primary and that it can't force them to pick up part of the tab.

The counties estimate the primary will cost $2 million, with state and the state Republican Party picking up about $1.3 million or about 65 percent.

State Attorney General Alan Wilson agreed the state Supreme Court should take up the case. Wilson argues the state has the authority to run the primary because it was included in the state budget law.

The Delaware Supreme Court is weighing whether to maintain the secrecy surrounding a letter from an actress' lawyer that led to the ouster of former Hewlett-Packard Co. CEO Mark Hurd following allegations of sexual harassment.

The letter was sent to Hurd last year by celebrity attorney Gloria Allred on behalf of Jodie Fisher, an actress who was hired to help with HP networking events and subsequently accused Hurd of sexual harassment.

Fisher reached a private settlement with Hurd in August 2010 for an undisclosed amount. HP announced the next day that Hurd was resigning. Instead of being fired, Hurd walked away with a severance package worth tens of millions of dollars.

A Delaware Court of Chancery judge ruled in March that the letter, which was attached to a complaint filed by an HP shareholder seeking company records regarding Hurd's departure, should be unsealed.

Hurd attorney Rolin Bissell argued Wednesday that Hurd and Fisher expected the letter to be kept confidential. He suggested that disclosure of the letter would violate their rights under California laws regarding personal privacy and the confidentiality of mediation in legal disputes. Bissell also argued that neither Delaware's law regarding shareholder access to corporate books and records, nor the presumption of openness of court records, require unsealing the letter.

An Australian court on Wednesday overturned a judgment that found the once-popular painkiller Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and was unfit for consumption.

The Federal Court's decision reverses a 2010 ruling that had found in favor of an Australian man who blamed the since-recalled drug for a heart attack he suffered. The court said the man, a former smoker, was susceptible to a heart attack independent of taking the drug.

The 2010 judgment — which awarded Graeme Peterson 287,000 Australian dollars ($285,000) in compensation — had opened the door for claims from hundreds of other litigants in a lawsuit against U.S. pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. over the arthritis painkiller.

Vioxx was taken off the international market in 2004 after research showed it raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Merck, the world's second-largest drugmaker by revenue, later paid a $4.85 billion settlement to resolve about 50,000 lawsuits in the U.S.

Peterson sued Merck and its Australian subsidiary, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, arguing the painkiller was the cause of his 2003 heart attack, which left him unable to work.

In March 2010, Federal Court Judge Christopher Jessup found that Merck Sharpe & Dohme failed in its duty of care by not warning Peterson's doctor about the drug's potential cardiovascular risks, and by its sales representatives emphasizing the drug's safety. Jessup also concluded that the consumption of Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and was unfit for use as a pain reliever.

Merck Sharpe & Dohme appealed that decision. On Wednesday, the Federal Court in Melbourne ruled the 2010 judgment should be thrown out and said the drug company was not liable for damages. The money originally awarded to Peterson has been held by the court since the initial ruling, so there is nothing for him to pay back.