A Maine judge has upheld a jury verdict that awarded $7.3 million in damages for emotional distress to a businessman who contended he was double-crossed by a law firm he hired.

A Cumberland County jury last summer said the Portland law firm of Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer and Nelson worked against Peter Redman's interests in a dispute with his brother over control of the now-defunct Northern Mattress and Furniture Co. In a 37-page ruling, Superior Court Justice Thomas Humphrey denied the law firm's motion seeking a new trial.

Redman, of Old Orchard Beach, was banned from the family business' headquarters over a sexual harassment claim he contended was orchestrated by his brother to wrest control of the business. Redman said the firm failed to defend him against the accusations.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is suing a Henry County law firm over a bank failure, saying the firm's handling of loans to a developer represented malpractice.

The lawsuit against Smith Welch & Brittain and 1 of its partners, J. Mark Brittain, alleges malpractice in Brittain's handling of loans Neighborhood Community Bank made to a developer from 2005 to 2007.

Neighborhood Community failed in 2009.

The suit claims the bank hired Brittain to process loan documents for land purchases by developer Jeff Grant and that Brittain had served as a lawyer for Grant. The FDIC is seeking damages of more than $6 million.

Christine Mast, an attorney representing Brittain and his firm, said Neighborhood Community was to blame for its failure and that the loans were at risk for default from the beginning.

Rupert Murdoch's News America Marketing has agreed to pay a whopping $125 million to settle a years-long lawsuit brought by tiny Insignia Systems Inc. that alleged Murdoch's people unfairly interfered and lied in attempt to take business from the Plymouth company, which provides in-store promotions.

The settlement, which is more than Insignia's market value and more than four times its 2009 revenue, was reached a day after the trial commenced before U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis.

The deal was announced after the markets closed Wednesday. Insignia's stock has traded lately at more than $6.50 per share, a five-year high and partly in anticipation by traders that Insignia would win a favorable outcome in light of recent, similar settlements reached by other competitors of News America, which is part of Murdoch's News Corp. holdings. Insignia shares closed at $7.57, up 3 percent in Wednesday's trading.

Under the settlement, New York-based News America will pay Insignia $125 million and Insignia will pay $4 million in return for a 10-year business arrangement that gives Insignia access to some News America clients. Insignia had sought more than $250 million in damages.

The bank where Bernard Madoff kept his clients' money is defending itself against allegations that it should have done more to stop his massive fraud.

JPMorgan Chase said in a court filing late Tuesday that it violated no federal rules and had no obligation to probe Madoff's investment scheme.

A court-appointed trustee sued the bank this month for $6.4 billion, claiming it suspected Madoff was a fraud but did almost nothing.

JPMorgan's court filing says that if the trustee were to get his way, it would impose "broad investigative duties" on banks that don't currently exist.

The bank also wants the case moved from bankruptcy court to district court. It says the suit is akin to a huge class action, more properly heard by a jury.

A federal judge on Wednesday questioned whether a key component of the landmark Voting Rights Act is outdated, expressing skepticism about using evidence of racial discrimination from 40 or 50 years ago to justify continued election monitoring for a group of mostly Southern states.

U.S. District Judge John Bates' comments came during oral arguments in an Alabama county's lawsuit targeting the law — a constitutional challenge that a number of legal observers predict could well reach the Supreme Court.

Shelby County, backed by conservative legal groups, maintains that it and other covered state, county and local governments should no longer be forced to get federal approval before changing even minor election procedures. They note that the Voting Rights Act — enacted in 1965 and extended by Congress for another 25 years in 2006 — relies heavily on past discrimination in determining which jurisdictions are covered by the "pre-clearance" requirement for election changes, such as moving a polling place or redrawing school district lines.

Bates posed sharp questions to the legal teams on both sides but at times appeared sympathetic to the county's argument.