MasterChef Judge Gregg Wallace In Hotel Brawl

MasterChef judge Gregg Wallace knocked a diner to the floor and punched him in the face for allegedly touching his girlfriend, according to reports.

The former greengrocer and restaurateur - known for using the phrase "cooking doesn't get tougher than this" - was pictured brawling with the man after a five-hour evening of food and wine at a plush hotel.

Wallace, 48, is reported to have punched the man several times because he apparently touched his 27-year-old girlfriend Anne-Marie Sterpini's bottom.

The fight broke out after he had hosted Dinner With Gregg Wallace at the Wood Norton Hotel in Evesham, Worcestershire.

The hotel's website described Wallace as "the bald one who likes puddings" and promised guests a champagne reception followed by a five-course dinner.

But the scene turned ugly.

A picture in The Sun showed white-shirted Wallace grappling with the man while another man tries to restrain him as other guests look on.

The BBC host was eventually led from the oak-panelled room at the Grade II-listed building and taken upstairs.

Claire Shepherd, 31, who was at the £75-a-head evening, told The Sun: "He kept doing speeches and then we had a Q and A session.

"It became quite obvious that he was very self-important, so a woman on our table tried to make a joke, saying his bakery chain Greggs was doing really well and he must be happy.

"But he didn't laugh. He just said: 'End of questions, enjoy your meal.' It was a tumbleweed moment."

A source told the Daily Mail: "The vast majority of those present were very drunk. I'm pretty sure Gregg had enjoyed a few drinks too.

"In fact, his girlfriend was one of the only people there who seemed sober. Gregg took exception to this man who was supposed to have been touching his girlfriend up.

"A table was knocked over as they grappled."

The newspaper reported that three-times married Wallace and the man later calmed down, apologised to each other and shared a whisky.

Wallace's spokeswoman told Sky News Online: "I can confirm Gregg was involved in a disagreement at an event last night. The situation was swiftly resolved."

She confirmed that police had not been called to the event.

(function(d){ var js, ref = d.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; js = d.createElement('script'); js.id = 'outbrainjs'; js.async = true; js.src = "//widgets.outbrain.com/outbrain.js"; ref.parentNode.insertBefore(js, ref); }(document));

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

MasterChef Judge Gregg Wallace In Hotel Brawl

MasterChef judge Gregg Wallace knocked a diner to the floor and punched him in the face for allegedly touching his girlfriend, according to reports.

The former greengrocer and restaurateur - known for using the phrase "cooking doesn't get tougher than this" - was pictured brawling with the man after a five-hour evening of food and wine at a plush hotel.

Wallace, 48, is reported to have punched the man several times because he apparently touched his 27-year-old girlfriend Anne-Marie Sterpini's bottom.

The fight broke out after he had hosted Dinner With Gregg Wallace at the Wood Norton Hotel in Evesham, Worcestershire.

The hotel's website described Wallace as "the bald one who likes puddings" and promised guests a champagne reception followed by a five-course dinner.

But the scene turned ugly.

A picture in The Sun showed white-shirted Wallace grappling with the man while another man tries to restrain him as other guests look on.

The BBC host was eventually led from the oak-panelled room at the Grade II-listed building and taken upstairs.

Claire Shepherd, 31, who was at the £75-a-head evening, told The Sun: "He kept doing speeches and then we had a Q and A session.

"It became quite obvious that he was very self-important, so a woman on our table tried to make a joke, saying his bakery chain Greggs was doing really well and he must be happy.

"But he didn't laugh. He just said: 'End of questions, enjoy your meal.' It was a tumbleweed moment."

A source told the Daily Mail: "The vast majority of those present were very drunk. I'm pretty sure Gregg had enjoyed a few drinks too.

"In fact, his girlfriend was one of the only people there who seemed sober. Gregg took exception to this man who was supposed to have been touching his girlfriend up.

"A table was knocked over as they grappled."

The newspaper reported that three-times married Wallace and the man later calmed down, apologised to each other and shared a whisky.

Wallace's spokeswoman told Sky News Online: "I can confirm Gregg was involved in a disagreement at an event last night. The situation was swiftly resolved."

She confirmed that police had not been called to the event.

(function(d){ var js, ref = d.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; js = d.createElement('script'); js.id = 'outbrainjs'; js.async = true; js.src = "//widgets.outbrain.com/outbrain.js"; ref.parentNode.insertBefore(js, ref); }(document));

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Detroit bankruptcy judge orders mediator to handle union talks

'Detroit' is seen on the top of an iron man-hole cover on a street in Detroit, Michigan July 27, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/ Rebecca Cook

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Martha Stewart Case Judge Ruling Favors JCP

The judge presiding over Macy's lawsuit against Martha Stewart and J.C. Penney ruled on Friday to allow the sale of Martha Stewart merchandise in J.C. Penney stores.

Judge Jeffrey Oing of the Supreme Court of the State of New York only gave a partial ruling in a case involving Stewart and two of the country's best-known retailers.

Macy's and J.C. Penny are still battling over the right to sell Stewart's products. In the meantime the judge has decided J.C. Penney can sell some of her home goods, over the objection of Macy's which says it has the exclusive on her sheets, towels and cookware.

Macy's sued Martha Stewart Living for breach of contract in 2012, saying an agreement to sell products at J.C. Penney in 2011 ran counter to Stewart's deal with Macy's in 2006. Macy's then sued J.C. Penney last year, saying it interfered with its contract.

The parties were ordered into mediation but failed to reach an out of court agreement by the deadline of April 8. Judge Oing has said he would prefer the retailers to come to some accord.

These sales, though a bit of good news for the embattled J.C. Penney, might have to stop for good depending on the final outcome of the case.

On Monday, J.C. Penney announced that it was replacing former CEO Ron Johnson with his predecessor, Myron Ullman.

Read more: JCP Leads Top 7 Recent CEO Disasters

The items covered by today's ruling do not carry Stewart's name but were designed for J.C. Penney by her company. Macy's had wanted the judge to ban its rival from selling anything connected to Martha Stewart and plans to appeal. The ruling frees up about $100 million worth of merchandise J.C. Penney had sitting in storage.

Read more: J.C. Penney Moves Forward with Martha Stewart Rollout Despite Macy's Lawsuit

Martha Stewart, 71, testified on March 5, saying she believes her company was permitted to sell products with her name in places besides Macy's.

"There were categories that were non-exclusive to Macy's that we could sell in other department stores," she said in court last month.

J.C. Penney Co. CEO Ron Johnson and Macy's Chief Executive Terry Lundgren have also testified.

"We are disappointed in today's decision, which is, by its nature, a preliminary ruling and not a final determination of Macy's claims," according to a statement provided by a Macy's spokesman. "We disagree with the court's decision to deny extending the preliminary injunction, and plan to file an immediate appeal. We are confident of a successful outcome in the appeal and ultimately in the litigation."

Macy's points out that the court's original preliminary injunction, granted in July 2012, remains in effect. That injunction prevents the sale of Martha Stewart-branded and Martha Stewart-promoted projects in Macy's exclusive categories at J.C. Penney, Macy's said.

A spokesman for J.C. Penney said the company was "pleased with the court's ruling to allow the sale of jcp everyday merchandise in our stores."

Martha Stewart Living has argued its contract with Macy's allowed it to sell Martha Stewart branded products that were in exclusive categories if they were sold within Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia stores in J.C. Penney.

You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.

View the original article here

Martha Stewart Case Judge Ruling Favors JCP

The judge presiding over Macy's lawsuit against Martha Stewart and J.C. Penney ruled on Friday to allow the sale of Martha Stewart merchandise in J.C. Penney stores.

Judge Jeffrey Oing of the Supreme Court of the State of New York only gave a partial ruling in a case involving Stewart and two of the country's best-known retailers.

Macy's and J.C. Penny are still battling over the right to sell Stewart's products. In the meantime the judge has decided J.C. Penney can sell some of her home goods, over the objection of Macy's which says it has the exclusive on her sheets, towels and cookware.

Macy's sued Martha Stewart Living for breach of contract in 2012, saying an agreement to sell products at J.C. Penney in 2011 ran counter to Stewart's deal with Macy's in 2006. Macy's then sued J.C. Penney last year, saying it interfered with its contract.

The parties were ordered into mediation but failed to reach an out of court agreement by the deadline of April 8. Judge Oing has said he would prefer the retailers to come to some accord.

These sales, though a bit of good news for the embattled J.C. Penney, might have to stop for good depending on the final outcome of the case.

On Monday, J.C. Penney announced that it was replacing former CEO Ron Johnson with his predecessor, Myron Ullman.

Read more: JCP Leads Top 7 Recent CEO Disasters

The items covered by today's ruling do not carry Stewart's name but were designed for J.C. Penney by her company. Macy's had wanted the judge to ban its rival from selling anything connected to Martha Stewart and plans to appeal. The ruling frees up about $100 million worth of merchandise J.C. Penney had sitting in storage.

Read more: J.C. Penney Moves Forward with Martha Stewart Rollout Despite Macy's Lawsuit

Martha Stewart, 71, testified on March 5, saying she believes her company was permitted to sell products with her name in places besides Macy's.

"There were categories that were non-exclusive to Macy's that we could sell in other department stores," she said in court last month.

J.C. Penney Co. CEO Ron Johnson and Macy's Chief Executive Terry Lundgren have also testified.

"We are disappointed in today's decision, which is, by its nature, a preliminary ruling and not a final determination of Macy's claims," according to a statement provided by a Macy's spokesman. "We disagree with the court's decision to deny extending the preliminary injunction, and plan to file an immediate appeal. We are confident of a successful outcome in the appeal and ultimately in the litigation."

Macy's points out that the court's original preliminary injunction, granted in July 2012, remains in effect. That injunction prevents the sale of Martha Stewart-branded and Martha Stewart-promoted projects in Macy's exclusive categories at J.C. Penney, Macy's said.

A spokesman for J.C. Penney said the company was "pleased with the court's ruling to allow the sale of jcp everyday merchandise in our stores."

Martha Stewart Living has argued its contract with Macy's allowed it to sell Martha Stewart branded products that were in exclusive categories if they were sold within Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia stores in J.C. Penney.

You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.

View the original article here

It’s back: District court judge revives SCO v IBM

Enlarge / DARL MCBRIDE THE EVER-LIVING.

Sad that Game of Thrones has wrapped up its third season? Looking for some drama to fill the time? We've got just the thing for you. One of the Internet's longest-running and most-hated lawsuits is back: SCO v. IBM has been reopened by Utah district court judge David Nuffer.

The case stretches back ten years to March 2003, when the SCO Group filed a massive $1 billion suit against IBM for allegedly contributing sections of commercial UNIX code from UNIX System V, which the SCO Group (allegedly) owned, to the Linux kernel's codebase. SCO Group claimed that the alleged presence of its proprietary code in the open source kernel devalued its proprietary code and that by making the source code available, IBM had violated its license agreement with SCO Group.

From there, the case spawned other cases and quickly ballooned to a truly ridiculous size and scope. The SCO Group demanded royalties from major companies using Linux and filed suit against several (including DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone. Novell stepped in, asserting that it actually held the copyright to the code SCO Group claimed was infringing, which then spun off into its own major lawsuit. Groklaw has an excellent and intricate timeline of the entire mess.

Throughout the case, SCO Group maintained three central claims: first, that it owned System V code that had been illegally used in the Linux kernel; second, that anyone who used Linux owed them money; and third, because the infringing code was proprietary, SCO refused to actually identify any of the code except under a highly restrictive NDA.

SCO Group CEO Darl McBride kept the fires of negative public opinion well-stoked as the cases continued, repeatedly stating that SCO "owned" UNIX and that there were "hundreds" of lines of infringing code in the Linux kernel (an estimate that was later revised to "more than a million").

Actually determining what UNIX code existed in the Linux kernel was a process that stretched out over a number of years and involved a lot of foot-dragging on SCO Group's part. In spite of numerous orders to produce actual evidence, SCO Group never presented a complete corpus of copied code. Samples of allegedly infringing code occasionally trickled out and were quickly analyzed and dismissed by an angry army of developers. In the end, SCO Group failed to produce anything, and in 2006 the court struck most of SCO Group's evidence.

All of the various lawsuits wound down, though it wasn't until 2010 that SCO v. Novell was definitively settled. Which brings us back, finally, to SCO v. IBM. SCO Group filed for bankruptcy back in 2007, but it's still at least somewhat alive and kicking. In March 2013, SCO Group asked the US District Court in Utah to consider its motion to reopen SCO v. IBM, which has been bouncing around the court system since 2011. The judge it's all landed on, David Nuffer, has decided to reopen the case, but he is sticking to the guidelines IBM has suggested on how things should proceed.

It's too early to tell what the possible implications are, and the new judge is taking things slowly as he familiarizes himself with the case. The parties involved are being asked to provide him with background information and details so that he can have at least some idea of what he's being asked to rule on. Groklaw has a number of predictions of how things might shake out; it's entirely possible that IBM will find its motions for summary judgment against SCO reaffirmed.

It's possible, though, that this latest round will drag on for a number of additional years. "Groan," comments Groklaw's Pamela Jones. "Who can believe this is still going on?"

View the original article here

It’s back: District court judge revives SCO v IBM

Enlarge / DARL MCBRIDE THE EVER-LIVING.

Sad that Game of Thrones has wrapped up its third season? Looking for some drama to fill the time? We've got just the thing for you. One of the Internet's longest-running and most-hated lawsuits is back: SCO v. IBM has been reopened by Utah district court judge David Nuffer.

The case stretches back ten years to March 2003, when the SCO Group filed a massive $1 billion suit against IBM for allegedly contributing sections of commercial UNIX code from UNIX System V, which the SCO Group (allegedly) owned, to the Linux kernel's codebase. SCO Group claimed that the alleged presence of its proprietary code in the open source kernel devalued its proprietary code and that by making the source code available, IBM had violated its license agreement with SCO Group.

From there, the case spawned other cases and quickly ballooned to a truly ridiculous size and scope. The SCO Group demanded royalties from major companies using Linux and filed suit against several (including DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone. Novell stepped in, asserting that it actually held the copyright to the code SCO Group claimed was infringing, which then spun off into its own major lawsuit. Groklaw has an excellent and intricate timeline of the entire mess.

Throughout the case, SCO Group maintained three central claims: first, that it owned System V code that had been illegally used in the Linux kernel; second, that anyone who used Linux owed them money; and third, because the infringing code was proprietary, SCO refused to actually identify any of the code except under a highly restrictive NDA.

SCO Group CEO Darl McBride kept the fires of negative public opinion well-stoked as the cases continued, repeatedly stating that SCO "owned" UNIX and that there were "hundreds" of lines of infringing code in the Linux kernel (an estimate that was later revised to "more than a million").

Actually determining what UNIX code existed in the Linux kernel was a process that stretched out over a number of years and involved a lot of foot-dragging on SCO Group's part. In spite of numerous orders to produce actual evidence, SCO Group never presented a complete corpus of copied code. Samples of allegedly infringing code occasionally trickled out and were quickly analyzed and dismissed by an angry army of developers. In the end, SCO Group failed to produce anything, and in 2006 the court struck most of SCO Group's evidence.

All of the various lawsuits wound down, though it wasn't until 2010 that SCO v. Novell was definitively settled. Which brings us back, finally, to SCO v. IBM. SCO Group filed for bankruptcy back in 2007, but it's still at least somewhat alive and kicking. In March 2013, SCO Group asked the US District Court in Utah to consider its motion to reopen SCO v. IBM, which has been bouncing around the court system since 2011. The judge it's all landed on, David Nuffer, has decided to reopen the case, but he is sticking to the guidelines IBM has suggested on how things should proceed.

It's too early to tell what the possible implications are, and the new judge is taking things slowly as he familiarizes himself with the case. The parties involved are being asked to provide him with background information and details so that he can have at least some idea of what he's being asked to rule on. Groklaw has a number of predictions of how things might shake out; it's entirely possible that IBM will find its motions for summary judgment against SCO reaffirmed.

It's possible, though, that this latest round will drag on for a number of additional years. "Groan," comments Groklaw's Pamela Jones. "Who can believe this is still going on?"

View the original article here