Subprime mortgage problems and stock market volatility drove up securities class action lawsuit filings in the second half of 2007, but total filings last year remained below the 10-year average, according to a report released Thursday.

With 100 suits filed, the second-half increase ended an extended downturn in the number of filings. However, it may not signal a long-term reversal in claim filings, according to one researcher.

• Revising the definition of a certified act of terrorism to eliminate the requirement that the individual(s) are acting on behalf of any foreign person or foreign interest.
• Extending the program by seven years through December 31, 2014.
• Requiring clear and conspicuous notice to policyholders of the existence of the $100 billion cap.
• Fixing the Insurer Deductible at 20% of an insurer's direct earned premium, and the federal share of compensation at 85% of insured losses that exceed insurer deductibles.
• Fixing the program trigger at $100 million for all additional program years.
• Requiring the U.S. Treasury to promulgate regulations for determining pro-rata shares of insured losses under the program when insured losses exceed $100 billion.
• Requiring the Comptroller General to study the availability and affordability of insurance coverage for losses caused by terrorist attacks involving nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological materials and issue a report not later than one year after the enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.
• Requiring the Comptroller General to determine whether there are specific markets in the United States where there are unique capacity constraints on the amount of terrorism insurance available and issue a report not later than 180 days after the enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.
• Requiring the President's Working Group on Financial Markets to continue an ongoing study of the long-term availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance.
• Accelerating the timing of the mandatory recoupment of the federal share through policyholders surcharges.

SAN FRANCISCO-An employee whose doctor recommended that he use marijuana cannot claim disability-based discrimination against an employer that fired him for testing positive for drug consumption, a split California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The plaintiff in Gary Ross vs. Ragingwire Telecommunications Inc. claimed his former employer violated California's anti-discrimination law when the employer fired him rather than make accommodations for a disability.