225-928-1700 | firstname.lastname@example.org
Investors and developers in the Capital Region are again willing to take a chance on spec building, provided risk is minimized.
As Louisiana-manufactured cuisine gains a profitable foothold in the nation's grocery stores, competition spills over into the courtroom.
Livingston Parish's 5-year-old debris cleanup debacle has attracted the notice of two U.S. Senate candidates.
Zachary overwhelmingly rejected a 2012 property tax hike but has seen no change in CATS service.
Call it the $100 million fish fry war. Two Louisiana food giants—Louisiana Fish Fry Products and Bruce Foods Corp.—are fighting it out in federal court over the right to claim they produce the one, true Louisiana fish and chicken fry. Baton Rouge-based Louisiana Fish Fry Products sued Bruce Foods in the summer of 2011, alleging the St. Martinville company best known for its Cajun Injector products infringed upon the trademark of the former when it launched a new line of batter products under the name "The Original Louisiana Fish Fry Mix" and "The Original Louisiana Chicken Fry Mix." Louisiana Fish Fry Products has used the trademark for its seasoned batter mixes for fish, shrimp and chicken since its formation in 1983. The company also claims that Bruce Foods' assertion that its batters are "the original" is false and misleading, since their arrival in grocery stores trailed Louisiana Fish Fry batters by nearly three decades. For its part, Bruce Foods has filed counterclaims, alleging it began using trademarks that included the word "Louisiana" in the 1920s, and secured the trademark "The Original Louisiana" for its hot sauce back in 1964. It asks a judge to instead bar Louisiana Fish Fry Products from using its own trademark in the future, and force its competitor to pay Bruce Foods $500,000 in punitive damages. It may be fish fry, but millions of dollars are at stake. —Penny Font Read the full story here.
A federal judge's abrupt ruling Wednesday in the consolidated class-action lawsuits against Baton Rouge home health provider Amedisys left attorneys in the case initially uncertain about its intent. U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson issued an order noting only that the "matter is reopened." Several public pension funds and other investors from across the country who purchased the company's publicly traded securities over a five-year period beginning in 2005 are suing Amedisys and seven current or former board members, alleging securities fraud. The case centers in part on a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into whether Amedisys improperly inflated Medicare reimbursements in part by pressuring nurses and therapists to provide unnecessary treatment visits to patients to trigger higher fees. The plaintiffs contend they suffered financial losses and damages because the company and its directors made "false and/or misleading statements," failed to disclose "material adverse facts about the company's business, operations and prospects," and neglected to follow their own Code of Ethical Business Conduct. Jackson had dismissed the cases in June, concluding the claims lacked adequate proof. But without written explanation, he signed the order Wednesday administratively reopening the case. Richard Zimmerman Jr., counsel for Amedisys, says in a statement to Daily Report this morning, "There is no indication that the court's April 17 order in any way reverses or modifies his dismissal of the securities class action lawsuit." —Penny Font