Malware phishing scammers targeting ABSA customers with the ZBot Trojan.

Super-Loan.co.za are super spammers and when you go to their website you will find that it is super useless, i.e. it only shows the Microsoft IIS7 status page. Super professional.

The Canadian Pharmacy Spammers are at it again, or should we say still at it again.

Manje wants to lend you a lot of money... only at an interest rate of 3%. That is a bargains scam!

Ms Veronica Cordier, a 419 loan offer scammer that's by the book.

Cleverly disguised WebCam Spam from MySafeStreams.com

Larry the 419 scammer is sorry for invading your privacy.

Mr James Morrison, the Trustfund Loan Lender. Sounds like a 419 superhero.

Follow-up e-mail from Hillary Ndubem, the new beneficiary of Mrs Ruth Mohammed's funds, as assigned by Barr. Katie Richardson.

Cliff is offering you the job of shipping manager assistant. The problem is, there is no job, so there is no salary, only a scammer waiting to take your money. This is the worst type of scammer, taking money from unemployed people.

A Liberty Life Debit Order Authorization from Microsoft, via Standard Bank. This is enough to make anyone confused. Clearly these phishing scammers did not think this one through.

You need to contact Mr Mark Van Jas... but what if you are under the age of 18?

A fake Chase e-mail that has PHISHING written all over it.

The most confusing Paypal phishing scam ever!

Phishing scammers using UCount awards as bait to steal your Standard Bank Internet Banking login details.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit the limited use of motor vehicles off-road in a national forest in Arizona for certain purposes. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental group's challenge to the issuance of a revised permit for a landfill. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the State of Missouri lacked legal standing to sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens to challenge a federal water supply project that will divert billions of gallons of Missouri River water. The issue involved so-called parens patriae standing. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit limited motorized big game retrieval in a national forest in Arizona. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion in a Freedom of Information Act case, held that the Sierra Club was entitled to certain records generated during the Environmental Protection Agency's rule-making process concerning cooling water intake structures. However, other records were protected from public release by the deliberative process privilege. Reversed in part and remanded.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining. While six justices agreed that the state ban on uranium mining was not preempted, they divided on broader questions concerning statutory interpretation and preemption doctrine, and thus were unable to agree on the rationale for the decision. Justice Gorsuch delivered a plurality opinion, and several justices concurred in the judgment only.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a project to address spreading pine-beetle infestation in certain at-risk forest lands. Rejected environmental groups' claims concerning the impact on a particular species of owl. Affirmed summary judgment for the government.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a citizen group, sued Defendant, a city, claiming the city violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving a certain development. The trial court found the development consistent with CEQA and denied Plaintiff’s writ of mandate petition.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the judgment upholding the Defendant, Water Board’s, determination that Plaintiff was jointly and severally responsible for the cleanup and abatement of petroleum residue or waste. Plaintiff sought a reversal of order denying petition to overturn that determination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A steel mill could be sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act but Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute was precluded. The suit was timely and equitable contribution rulings were proper.

(United States DC Circuit) - Granted in part. In a petition to review an order loosening regulations to allow microcell transmission towers supporting cell phone reception to be built on or near Native American cultural sites, the FCC's determination that it wasn't in the public interest to review small cell deployment was arbitrary and capricious.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a preliminary injunction against a company whose business involved purchasing physical copies of copyrighted movie and television shows, censoring objectionable content, and then ripping digital copies of their edited versions to stream to customers because the Family Movie Act and the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not permit the defendant's activities.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment to the defense in a Copyright Act infringement case centered on a pen and ink depiction of two dolphins whose creator claimed a painting of two dolphins was copied because the panel found that the idea was simply drawn from nature and that expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all cannot result in copyright.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defense in a copyright case where the assignee of certain photographs tried to sue the owner for infringement for exceeding its licensed use of certain photographs taken by photographers who had a non-exclusive licensing agreement with them because the Copyright Act doesn't permit prosecution of infringement suits by assignees that have never been the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right to the intellectual property.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming a district court judgment dismissing a copyright infringement suit brought by a producer of educational materials against FedEx for their duplication of the products on behalf of school districts, whose use was licensed as noncommercial, because the distinction between their use and FedEx's facilitation of their use should have been explicitly laid out in the license they gave the schools.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a state law accounting claim and otherwise vacating and remanding the case of a musical group called Sly Slick & Wicked who challenged the collection of royalties during the renewal period of the copyright of their song, entitled Sho' Nuff, which had been sampled by Justin Timberlake and J. Cole because their repudiation of the original terms of the copyright many years earlier did not also constitute a repudiation of the renewal terms, resulting in a time-bar to their claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this copyright and attorney fees case the 9th Circuit affirmed the Central District Court opinion awarding attorneys fees to defendants under 17 USC section 505. Plaintiff file suit claiming copyright infringement and breach of implied contract alleging that the film, Walk of Shame, was copied from a screenplay given to the defendants seven years before the film was released. The District Court found that there was no substantial similarity between the screen play and the film and dismissed the federal copyright claim with prejudice and dismissed the state law contract claim without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs which was granted. The 9th Circuit, finding no abuse of discretion affirmed the attorney fee award.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.