/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080707.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 133 Headlines 40/40: Judge Paves Way for Overtime Suit vs. Nightclub and Jay-Z ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Canadian SRAM Lawsuits Discontinued APOLLO GROUP: No Discovery Yet in Arizona Securities Fraud Suit APOLLO GROUP: Aug. 4 Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Fraud Suit APOLLO GROUP: Discovery is Ongoing in Ariz. Title VII Litigation CHEVRON: Pipeline Endangers La Mirada Residents, Suit Says DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Shawnee Woman Leads Oklahoma Steering Gear Suit DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Bernstein Named Lead Counsel in Fla. Suit ELECTROLYTIC ZINC: Plaintiff Appeals Superior Court Decision ELI LILLY: Loses Appeal to Limit Damages in Canada Zyprexa Suit G. WILLI-FOOD: Reaches Settlement in 3 Tuna Content Lawsuits H&R BLOCK: Pa. Court Agrees to Review Order Reinstating RAL Suit H&R BLOCK: Continues to Face Suits Over "Peace of Mind" Program H&R BLOCK: Reaches Settlement in Pa. Electronic Filing Fees Suit H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces California Suit Over Subframe Drain Holes JACKSON HEWITT: Nov. 12 Hearing Set for California RAL Lawsuit JACKSON HEWITT: 6th Circuit Considers Appeal in Credit Act Suit JACKSON HEWITT: Discovery Ongoing in W.Va. CSOA Violations Suit JACKSON HEWITT: Ill. Court Allows Filing of Amended Complaint MICHAEL BAKER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. PERPETUAL STORAGE: Faces Lawsuit in Utah Over Data Theft QUAKER FABRIC: Displaced Workers Win WARN Act Violations Suit SAVIENT PHARMA: Third Circuit Affirms N.J. Suit Dismissal SULPICIO LINES: Romblon Execs. Mull Suit Over Capsized Ferry TEXAS: Immigration Hold Policy in Nacogdoches County Challenged TOYOTA CANADA: Quebec's OPC Issues Favorable Ruling in Fees Suit WALGREEN CO: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois New Securities Fraud Cases APPLE INC: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit FIFTH THIRD: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio FIRST AMERICAN: Brualdi Law Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. HEALTHWAYS INC: Brualdi Files Tennessee Securities Fraud Lawsuit NEXCEN BRANDS: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ********* 40/40: Judge Paves Way for Overtime Suit vs. Nightclub and Jay-Z ---------------------------------------------------------------- A New York City judge has paved the way for a class-action suit against rapper Jay-Z and his nightclub 40/40, FOX News says, citing an earlier New York Post report. According to FOX News, the suit was filed by Celeste Williams, a former employee who claims that the club did not pay overtime or minimum wage. The report relates that a judge recently ordered the club's management to turn over the names of all employees over the past three years. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq., Ms. Williams' lawyer, told the Post that "this is a good day for restaurant workers all over the city," and now plans to reach out to other club workers to see if they want to be a part of the suit. Mr. Kirschenbaum said he did not know how much money each worker might be entitled to as he had not been able to access 40/40's complete records, but between 10 and 20 past and present bartenders, waiters and other workers are already on board. ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Canadian SRAM Lawsuits Discontinued ----------------------------------------------------------- Alliance Semiconductor Corp. has reached an agreement that discontinues several purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed in Canada in connection with static random access memory (SRAM), according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008. In late 2006, the company and other firms in the semiconductor industry were named as defendants in a number of purported antitrust class action suits filed in Canada. The lawsuits purport to state claims on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of SRAM products based on an alleged conspiracy between manufacturers of SRAM devices to fix or control the price of SRAM during the period Jan. 1, 1998, through Dec. 31, 2005. Based on an agreement to toll the statute of limitations until Jan. 10, 2009, the lawsuits pending in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, have been discontinued without prejudice. The company anticipates that the litigation pending in Quebec, Canada, will also be discontinued in accordance with the tolling agreement. Alliance Semiconductor Corp. -- http://www.alsc.com/-- is a provider of analog and mixed-signal products, high-performance memory products and connectivity and networking solutions for the communications computing, embedded, industrial and consumer markets. It operated in two segments: Memory and Non-Memory. APOLLO GROUP: No Discovery Yet in Arizona Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has yet to begin in a securities fraud class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Apollo Group, Inc. The class-action complaint, captioned, "Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB," was filed on Nov. 2, 2006, and purported to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between Nov. 28, 2001, and Oct. 28, 2006. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly failing to disclose alleged deficiencies in the Company's stock option granting policies and practices. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to pursue the action. The court later appointed The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel. On Nov. 23, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations concerning the company's stock option granting policies and practices, traded while in possession of material non-public information, violated duties of care, candor and loyalty, and engaged in self-dealing. The Lead Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy to commit fraud, and seeks unstated compensatory and punitive damages and other relief on behalf of the purported class. Aside from the company, other named defendants are: -- John G. Sperling, -- Todd S. Nelson, -- Kenda B. Gonzales, -- Daniel E. Bachus, -- John M. Blair, -- Hedy F. Govenar, -- Brian E. Mueller, -- Dino J. DeConcini, -- Peter V. Sperling, and -- Laura Palmer Noone. All defendants filed motions to dismiss the case, which requests are now pending before the Court. There is no further development in the matter and discovery has not yet begun, according to the company's July 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008. The suit is "Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Robert C. Broomfield, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-377-1181 Fax: 312-377-1184 Representing the defendants are: Michael J. Farrell, Esq. (mfarrell@jsslaw.com) Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385 Phone: 602-262-5900 Fax: 602-495-2618 - and - Joseph E. Floren, Esq. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 101 Park Ave. New York, NY 10178-0060 Phone: 212-309-6000 APOLLO GROUP: Aug. 4 Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Aug. 4, 2008 hearing is scheduled for a consolidated suit against Apollo Group, Inc., captioned, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT." In October 2004, three class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The Court consolidated the three pending class action complaints under the caption, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff. The Lead Plaintiff represents a class of the company's shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004, and Sept. 14, 2004. The consolidated complaint specifically named the company, Todd S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, and Daniel E. Bachus, as defendants. On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Act by the company for defendants' allegedly material false and misleading statements in connection with its failure to publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S. Department of Education program review report. The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007. On Jan. 16, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding damages of up to $5.55 for each share of common stock in the class suit, plus pre-judgment and post- judgment interest. The class shares are those purchased after Feb. 27, 2004, and still owned on Sept. 14, 2004. The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an automatic stay until Feb. 13, 2008. On Feb. 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to stay execution of the judgment pending resolution of our motions for post-trial relief, which were also filed on Feb. 13, 2008, provided that we post a bond in the amount of $95.0 million. On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95-million bond with the Court. Oral arguments have been scheduled for Aug. 4, 2008, on the company's post-trial motions, according to the company's July 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008. The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge James A. Teilborg, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert D. Mitchell, Esq. (robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com) Mitchell & Forest 2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602-468-1411 Fax: 602-468-1311 - and – Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 Representing the company is: Wayne W. Smith, Esq. Orange County Office 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949-451-4108 Fax: 949-475-4709 APOLLO GROUP: Discovery is Ongoing in Ariz. Title VII Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit against the University of Phoenix, Inc. (UPX), a unit of Apollo Group, Inc., captioned, "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM." The suit was filed on Sept. 25, 2006, by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as a Title VII action against UPX. It was filed on behalf of four identified former employees and a proposed class of unidentified former and current employees who were allegedly discriminated against because they were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The complaint also alleges that some of the employees were retaliated against after complaining about the alleged discrimination. The EEOC did not serve its Complaint on UPX until Nov. 21, 2006. UPX answered the Complaint on Dec. 8, 2006, denying the material allegations asserted. An initial Scheduling Conference was held on Feb. 15, 2007. During the course of discovery, the EEOC identified approximately 45 additional class members on whose behalf it was seeking relief. UPX filed motions to strike almost all of these additional class members on the basis that they failed to timely exhaust their administrative remedies and meet other statutory prerequisites to filing suit under Title VII. The Court denied UPX's motions to strike on May 2, 2008, and UPX subsequently filed a motion for certification to file an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit. The Court later granted UPX's motion for certification and stayed discovery regarding the additional class members pending the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The parties are currently engaged in discovery regarding the four identified former employees and several of the class members whose status in the lawsuit is not affected by the interlocutory appeal, according to the company's July 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008. The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Mary H. Murguia, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Katherine J. Kruse, Esq. (katherine.kruse@eeoc.gov) EEOC 3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 Phone: 602-640-5029 Fax: 602-640-5009 Representing the defendants is: William R. Hayden, Esq. (bhayden@swlaw.com) Snell & Wilmer LLP 1 Arizona Ctr, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001 Phone: 602-382-6000 Fax: 602-382-6070 CHEVRON: Pipeline Endangers La Mirada Residents, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Chevron Corporation is facing a class-action complaint before the Superior Court in Los Angeles for allegedly violating laws on transportation of hazardous oil products through pipelines in La Mirada, CourtHouse News Service reports. San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron Corp. operates as an energy company worldwide. Its petroleum operations consist of exploring for, developing, and producing crude oil and natural gas; refining crude oil into finished petroleum products; marketing crude oil, natural gas, and various products derived from petroleum; and transporting crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum products by pipeline, marine vessel, motor equipment, and rail car. La Mirada homeowners claim Chevron has concealed the dangers of the pipeline and "has been operating on a 'don't ask, don't tell' mentality." According to the complaint, the Chevron pipeline runs for miles, borders on numerous private homes, puts people at serious risk, but "Chevron willfully and knowingly fails to comply with the myriad of regulations concerning the notification of and education regarding hazardous liquid pipelines, so as not to alert the residential homeowners of their existence on their property and 'awake the sleeping giant." Representing the plaintiffs is: Patrick McNicholas, Esq. McNicholas & McNicholas LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-474-1582 Fax: 310-475-7871 Web site: http://www.mcnicholaslaw.com/ DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Shawnee Woman Leads Oklahoma Steering Gear Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shawnee resident Rhonda Masquat was appointed lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler Corp., Janice Francis-Smith writes for The Journal Record. Moreover, according to the report, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed on July 1, 2008, a ruling of the District Court of Pottawatomie County that granted class certification in Oklahoma, allowing the case against DaimlerChrysler to proceed. Journal Record recounts that Ms. Masquat had experienced some problems with the steering of her car a few times. However, she did not realize the cause or the extent of the problem until she saw an ad run by the West Law Firm, which is handling the case. Terry West, Esq., of the West Law Firm, told Journal Record that the case has gone smoothly because the plaintiffs have the law on their side. "We just followed the law as it exists in Oklahoma," he said. DaimlerChrysler had earlier argued that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. However, the report notes, Ms. Masquat countered that the statute was tolled based on the company's "active concealment" of the alleged defect. Mr. West recounts to Journal Record that a Kansas City attorney had contacted him with information collected from possible clients in the region that would indicate a defect in the steering mechanism of a number of vehicles manufactured by DaimlerChrysler between 1993 and 2001. Vehicles containing the alleged defect in the power rack and pinion steering system include the Dodge Intrepid, Eagle Vision, Chrysler New Yorker, Chrysler LHS, Chrysler Concord and the Chrysler 300M. According to the report, DaimlerChrysler introduced a newly designed bolt for the rack and pinion steering gear in late 2000. However, the class action complaint argues that consumers who already owned the vehicles in question were not notified the fix was available. A kit to replace the bolt costs about $310 and the trial court approved the class with a $400 cap on the amount of compensation paid to class members. Journal Record says that the court found the issue all members of the class have in common is the question of whether DaimlerChrysler engaged in fraudulent concealment of the steering problem. The certified class includes the current and past owners of more than 2 million vehicles. The class seeks repayment for the cost of the repair. The report notes that none of the class members suffered physical injury due to the alleged defect. Journal Record points out that West Law Firm's attorneys have settled or successfully litigated hundreds of cases, involving personal injury, product liability, defective drugs, and more. Among the firm's successes is an $18-million class benefit for a nationwide class of homeowners who were underpaid on property damage claims, and settlement in a lawsuit against Bayer for injuries attributed to its drug Baycol. Mr. West is a two-time president of the Oklahoma Trial Lawyers Association and a past governor of the state Bar Association. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Bernstein Named Lead Counsel in Fla. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- On July 1, 2008, Chief Judge Patricia C. Fawsett of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida appointed Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP to act as sole lead counsel in the securities class action lawsuit captioned, "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., Civ. No. 08-388 (M.D. Fla.)." Bernstein Liebhard represents the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California and the Carpenters Annuity Trust Fund for Northern California, which the Court appointed as lead plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleges that the company and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements during the period June 19, 2007, through December 18, 2007, concerning rising food costs, negative trends in same-store sales at company restaurants, the underperformance of company restaurants, and the company's financial well-being. The Court ordered the filing of a consolidated class action complaint no later than September 2, 2008. Mel E. Lifshitz, Esq., a partner at the firm, stated: "We look forward to working with these Funds as they lead the fight to recover the losses suffered by the company's shareholders." For more information, contact: Mel Lifshitz, Esq. (lifshitz@bernlieb.com) Steve Peitler, Esq. (peitler@bernlieb.com) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 Fax: 212-779-3218 Toll Free: 877-779-1414 ELECTROLYTIC ZINC: Plaintiff Appeals Superior Court Decision ------------------------------------------------------------ The Noranda Income Fund has confirmed that the plaintiff has appealed the June 4, 2008 decision of the Honourable Judge Helene Poulin of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec that dismissed the plaintiff's motion to institute a class action against its' manager, Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited (CEZinc), following the release of sulphur trioxide (SO3) from the refinery in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield on August 9, 2004. The Superior Court's judgment confirms the position held by CEZinc since the beginning, that the class action suit was unfounded (Class Action Reporter, June 24, 2008). The class representative had sought authorization to file a class action suit in the days following the incident, on behalf of the individuals who were inconvenienced by the accidental release of sulphur trioxide. CEZinc management is satisfied with the judgment and hopes this will put an end to the proceedings. The class representative has 30 days to appeal the decision. Since 2004, CEZinc management has reviewed and improved its communications protocol, and has invested $1.1 million to improve the control systems at the acid plants and to increase the number of electronic sulphur surveillance posts. In 2005, CEZinc obtained ISO 14 001 certification for environmental management. The staff and management at CEZinc are committed to ethical values by adhering to the strictest norms. CEZinc remains a responsible corporate citizen, dedicated to protecting the environment and respecting its laws. It works closely with Environment Canada, Quebec's Ministere du Developpement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs and is an involved partner in sustainable development within the community. While CEZinc awaits the final outcome of this appeal, it continues to maintain that the class action suit is unfounded. Noranda Income Fund is an income trust whose units trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "NIF.UN". The Noranda Income Fund owns the CEZinc processing facility and ancillary assets (the CEZinc processing facility) located in Salaberry-de- Valleyfield, Quebec. The CEZinc processing facility is the second-largest zinc processing facility in North America and the largest zinc processing facility in eastern North America, where the majority of its customers are located. It produces refined zinc metal and various by-products from zinc concentrates purchased from mining operations. The Processing Facility is operated and managed by Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Xstrata Canada Corporation. ELI LILLY: Loses Appeal to Limit Damages in Canada Zyprexa Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly & Co. lost an appeal to limit potential damages in a lawsuit filed by Canadian patients who claimed that they developed diabetes after using the company's Zyprexa schizophrenia drug, Joe Schneider writes for Bloomberg News. According to Bloomberg, an Ontario appeal court affirmed on July 2, 2008, a lower court's decision that said plaintiffs in a group or class-action suit may try to recover money that Lilly made from sales rather than get damages. The plaintiffs sought CDN$900 million in damages in their initial claim, the report recounts. Bloomberg relates that Lilly, the world's biggest maker of psychiatric medicines, is accused of failing to warn consumers that the Zyprexa schizophrenia treatment may cause diabetes. Zyprexa has been prescribed to almost 24 million patients in 84 countries since being approved in 1996 and Lilly had said it is confident the drug is safe. The report adds that Zyprexa is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Canadian regulators to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In 2007, sales of the drug rose 9% to US$4.76 billion, about a quarter of Lilly's revenue. Opting to go after a company's sales is unprecedented in court, Toronto-based class action lawyer Paul Bates, who is not involved in the Zyprexa suit, told Bloomberg. That has "the power to make defendants liable for truly enormous amounts of money," Judge Sidney Lederman wrote on July 10, 2007, upon granting Lilly permission to appeal. "The ramifications of exposure to this type of liability will extend beyond the parties to affect not just the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, but also the securities market." Laurel Swartz, a Lilly spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement to Bloomberg that they are "disappointed in [the] decision of the Ontario Divisional Court to not correct certain aspects of the initial certification decision." She did not say, however, whether the company planned to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the province's highest court. The decision from a three-member panel shows that the U.S. and Canadian cases "are developing somewhat along different paths," Michael Eizenga, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a telephone interview with Bloomberg. "You don't very often have drug cases certified any longer down there," he added, referring to certification of cases as class action. Bloomberg notes that Lilly, in March, agreed to pay Alaska US$15 million to settle a similar lawsuit before it went to a jury. Bloomberg recalls that studies linking Zyprexa and similar medications, including Astrazeneca Plc's Seroquel and Risperdal, made by a Johnson & Johnson unit, to weight gain and diabetes prompted the Federal Drug Administration to require warnings to doctors in 2003 and 2004. Lilly has paid about $1.2 billion to settle 31,000 claims brought by U.S. patients who said they were not adequately warned that the medicine can cause diabetes, weight gain and pancreas inflammation, the report further recounts. About 1,200 similar lawsuits remain in the U.S., spokeswoman Tarra Ryker said earlier this year. The case is "Andrea Heward vs. Eli Lilly & Co., 181/07," filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court (Toronto). G. WILLI-FOOD: Reaches Settlement in 3 Tuna Content Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ G. Willi-Food International Ltd., one of Israel's largest food importers and a single-source supplier of one of the world's most extensive range of quality kosher food products, had signed a settlement agreement pertaining to three lawsuits and the demand to approve them as class actions, which were filed against the company by three plaintiffs regarding the matter of reduced contents of the company's tuna containers. The complaints allege that the company misled its customers by reducing the content in its tuna containers, and then charging its customers the same price as before (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2007) Under the Settlement Agreement, the company has denied all wrongdoing and will carry out a special discount sale (the "Sale") of 480,000 cans of tuna that will all contain roughly an additional one-third of an ounce of tuna, or approximately 7% more tuna, than usually marketed. These larger cans of tuna will have the same price as the usual cans of tuna, but will be labeled as discounted. The company will be entitled to advertise the sale at its own discretion. According to the Settlement Agreement, the company agreed to pay the plaintiffs and their attorneys approximately $15,000 for their legal costs. The Settlement Agreement is subject to the approval of the District Court of Tel-Aviv. The remaining two lawsuits and the demand to approve them as class action suits filed against the company by two plaintiffs and described in the company's press release from January 2, 2007, have been dismissed. Based in Yavne, Israel, G. Willi-Food International Ltd. -- http://www.willi-food.co.il/.-- directly and through subsidiaries, imports, markets and distributes more than 400 food products manufactured by some 100 top-tier suppliers throughout the world to its more than 1,000 customers. H&R BLOCK: Pa. Court Agrees to Review Order Reinstating RAL Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review an appellate court's decision reversing a decertification of the suit, "Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246," which filed against H&R Block, Inc. The Basile matter was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23, 1993. The case is in connection with the company's refund anticipation loan (RAL) programs. In general, plaintiffs in the Basile matter and in similar cases have alleged, among other things: (1) that disclosures in the RAL applications were inadequate, misleading and untimely; (2) that the RAL interest rates were usurious and unconscionable; (3) that the company did not disclose that it would receive part of the finance charges paid by the customer for such loans; (4) that company breached state laws on credit service organizations; (5) that the company committed a breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (6) that the company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty to its customers in connection with the RAL program. The court decertified the class in the Basile case on Dec. 31, 2003. The Pennsylvania appellate court subsequently reversed the trial court's decertification decision. On Sept. 26, 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decision to decertify the class. On June 4, 2007, the appellate court affirmed its earlier decision to reverse the trial court's decertification decision. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted the company's request to review the appellate court ruling, according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. H&R BLOCK: Continues to Face Suits Over "Peace of Mind" Program --------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., a unit of H&R Block, Inc., still faces purported class action lawsuits in Illinois and Texas in relation to the its Peace of Mind Program, according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008. Illinois Litigation One of the cases is the purported class action suit "Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action 2003L000004," filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002, and was granted class- action status on Aug. 27, 2003. The plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to the POM Program under which the applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return preparation error. The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees constitutes: -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license; -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming" (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though they did not request it or want it); and -- a breach of fiduciary duty. In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes consisting of all persons who, from Jan. 1, 1997, to final judgment: -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member; -- reside in certain class states and were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member. Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded from the plaintiff class. The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product. The defendants filed a motion to decertify the classes, which is set to be heard in July 2008. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been set. Texas Litigation There is one other putative class action suit pending against the company in Texas that involves the POM guarantee. This case involves the same plaintiffs' attorneys that are involved in the Marshall litigation, and contains similar allegations. No class has been certified in this case. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. H&R BLOCK: Reaches Settlement in Pa. Electronic Filing Fees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc., reached a settlement in the matter, "Erin M. McNulty and Brian J. Erzar v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CIV-4654," which was filed in the Court of Common Please of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008. The suit, filed on Aug. 30, 2002, contains allegations that the defendants deceptively portray electronic filing fees as a necessary and required component of standard tax preparation services and do not inform tax preparation clients that they may: -- file tax returns free of charge by mailing the returns, -- electronically file tax returns from personal computers either free of charge are at significantly lower fees, and -- be eligible to electronically file tax returns free of charge via telephone. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and disgorgement of all electronic filing, tax preparation and related fees collected during the applicable class period. Class certification was granted in the case on Sept. 5, 2007. In March 2008, the company reached a tentative agreement to settle the suit for an amount not to exceed $2.5 million and have accrued $1.7 million, representing the company's best estimate of ultimate loss. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on June 27, 2008, with a final fairness hearing scheduled for September 2008. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re H&R Block Securities Litigation," are appealing the dismissal of their case against H&R Block Inc. On April 6, 2007, a putative class action styled, "In re H&R Block Securities Litigation," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company and certain of its officers. The complaint alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading financial statements, failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the company's operations. It sought unspecified damages and equitable relief. On Oct. 5, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to re-file the portion of the complaint pertaining to the Company's financial statements. On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed the complaint, alleging, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. At the defendant's behest, the court dismissed the re-filed complaint on Feb. 19, 2008. On March 11, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008. The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06- 0236-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Representing the plaintiffs are: Charles F. Speer, Esq. (cspeer@speerlawfirm.com) Speer Law Firm 104 West 9th Street, Suite 305 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: 816-472-3560 Fax: 816-421-2150 - and - Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 Representing the defendants are: Sameer Advani, Esq. (sadvani@willkie.com) Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 7thAvenue New York, NY 10019-6099 Phone: 212-728-8000 Fax: 212-728-8111 - and - Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-320-4858 Fax: 650-565-5100 HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces California Suit Over Subframe Drain Holes -------------------------------------------------------------- Hyundai Motor America, a subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Co., is facing a consumer class-action complaint in Orange County Court, California, CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint alleges that Hyundai's failure to engineer proper drain holes in the subframe of its Sonata vehicle causes structural deterioration and wrecks the suspension. About Hyundai Motor America Hyundai Motor America, headquartered in Fountain Valley, Calif., is a subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Co. of Korea. Hyundai vehicles are distributed throughout the United States by Hyundai Motor America and are sold and serviced through almost 800 dealerships nationwide. About Hyundai Motor Headquartered in Seoul, South Korea, Hyundai Motor Company -- http://www.hyundai-motor.com/-- has been selling cars in the US since 1986, but it only started selling its heavy trucks stateside in 1998. Hyundai produces 14 models of cars, SUVs, and minivans, as well as trucks, buses, and other commercial vehicles. The company reestablished itself as South Korea's leading carmaker in 1998 by acquiring a 51% stake in Kia Motors (since reduced to about 43%). Hyundai's models for the North American market include the Accent and Sonata; models sold elsewhere include the GRD and Equus. The company also manufactures machine tools for factory automation and material- handling equipment. JACKSON HEWITT: Nov. 12 Hearing Set for California RAL Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- A Nov. 12, 2008 class certification hearing was set for a lawsuit against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, and Cendant Corp. in connection with Refund Anticipation Loans. On March 18, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors brought the purported class action suit before the Superior Court of California in San Francisco. It subsequently added Cendant in the case, which was transferred to the Superior Court of California in Santa Barbara. The suit seeks declaratory relief in connection with the provision of RALs, as to the lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, as to the validity of Santa Barbara's cross-lender debt collection provision and as to whether the method of disclosure to customers with respect to the provision is unlawful or fraudulent. The suit is also seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. Jackson Hewitt is a party in the action for allegedly collaborating, and aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T. The trial court granted a motion by Santa Barbara and third- party bank defendants on federal preemption grounds, and stayed all other proceedings pending appeal. The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's preemption decision. The California Supreme Court denied review. SBB&T and third-party banks asked the California Court of Appeal to stay remittitur pending certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 4, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, and the purported class action suit is proceeding in the trial court. A class certification hearing has been scheduled for Nov. 12, 2008, according to Jackson Hewitt's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/ -- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S. The Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing. JACKSON HEWITT: 6th Circuit Considers Appeal in Credit Act Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., in connection with an earlier court decision denying the company's bid to reverse an order remanding the purported class action, "Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-02632-PAG" to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County. Initially, on Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class action complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, over an alleged failure to comply with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and alleged unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act. The suit seeks damages and injunctive relief. On Oct. 30, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On Nov. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case and a motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration. On Dec. 8, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, which the company opposed. In February 2007, the Court entered an order remanding the case to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, without ruling on the other pending motions. The company then filed for permission to appeal the remand decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In September 2007, the Court denied the company's request. On Sept. 21, 2007 the company filed a petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit requesting a rehearing by the Court panel that denied the petition and to request that the full Court hear the matter. A decision by the Court is currently pending. The company reported no development in the matter in its June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008. The suit is "Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv- 02632-PAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Patricia A. Gaughan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ronald I. Frederick, Esq. (RonF@ClevelandConsumerLaw.com) The Law Office of Ronald I. Frederick Ste. 1300, 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-502-1055 Fax: 216-781-1749 - and - Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. (pperotti@dworkenlaw.com) Dworken & Bernstein Painesville, 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Phone: 440-352-3391 Fax: 440-352-3469 Representing the defendant is: G. Karl Fanter, Esq. (kfanter@bakerlaw.com) Baker & Hostetler 3200 National City Center, 1900 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-861-7918 Fax: 216-696-0740 JACKSON HEWITT: Discovery Ongoing in W.Va. CSOA Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia over alleged violations of West Virginia's Credit Service Organization Act. On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter brought a purported class action complaint against the company for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty, for breach of West Virginia's Credit Service Organization Act, for breach of contract, and for unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and seeking damages. On Nov. 22, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit. On Nov. 6, 2007, the Court only partially granted the company's dismissal request. On Nov. 21, 2007, the company answered the complaint. On March 13, 2008, the Court granted a motion by the company for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's breach of contract claim. The case is in its discovery and pretrial stage, according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008. The suit is "Hunter v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv- 00919," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: John W. Barrett, Esq. (jbarrett@baileyglasser.com) Bailey & Glasser 227 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-1386 Phone: 304-345-6555 Fax: 304-342-1110 Representing the defendants are: Michael P. Kelly, Esq. (mikelly@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom 1440 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-371-7000 Fax: 202-393-5760 - and - Debra Lee Hovatter, Esq. (dhovatter@spilmanlaw.com) Spilman Thomas & Battle P.O. Box 615 Morgantown, WV 26504-0615 Phone: 304-291-7935 Fax: 304-291-7979 JACKSON HEWITT: Ill. Court Allows Filing of Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois allowed the plaintiffs in the matter, "Wooley v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. et al.,Case No. 1:07-cv-02201," to file a fourth amended complaint in the case, which was brought against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., in connection with the company's tax return preparation services. On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought the purported class action complaint against the company and certain unknown franchisees on behalf of customers who obtained tax return preparation services that allegedly included false deductions without support by the customer. The practice allegedly resulted in penalties being assessed by the IRS against the taxpayer. The suit was brought for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act. It sought compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act relate to representations regarding tax return preparation and Gold Guarantee coverage and denial of Gold Guarantee claims. On Aug. 1, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which motion was later denied without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to further amend the complaint. On Oct. 5, 2007, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to add additional parties. On Nov. 20, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 25, 2008, the Court favored the company and dismissed all claims against it. On April 11, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The company opposed that motion. On June 19, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiff's request and permitted him to file a fourth amended complaint consistent with the Court's March 25, 2008 decision, according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008. The suit is "Wooley v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02201," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Ruben Castillo, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. (clint@krislovlaw.com) Krislov & Associates, Ltd. 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-606-0500 Representing the defendants is: Christina M. Tchen, Esq. (ttchen@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-407-0700 Fax: 312-407-0411 MICHAEL BAKER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Baker Corp. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Initially, four separate complaints were filed by holders of the company's common stock against the company, as well as certain of its current and former officers. The complaints in these lawsuits purport to have been made on behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of purchasers of the company's common stock between March 19, 2007, and Feb. 22, 2008. The suits alleged that the company and certain of its current and former officers made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees and costs. In June 2008, all of the cases were consolidated into a single action, according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Michael Baker Corp. -- http://www.mbakercorp.com/-- provides engineering and energy services to public and private sector clients worldwide through its operating subsidiaries. The Company operates through two segments: Engineering and Energy. The Company's Engineering segment provides a variety of design and related consulting services, principally in the U.S. The Energy segment provides a range of services to operating energy production facilities worldwide. Contracts with various branches of the U.S. government accounted for 27% of its total contract revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's contracts with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) accounted for approximately 15% of its revenues in 2006. In April 2006, the Company acquired Buck Engineering, P.C., of Cary, North Carolina. PERPETUAL STORAGE: Faces Lawsuit in Utah Over Data Theft -------------------------------------------------------- Perpetual Storage, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint in the Third Judicial District of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, over allegations that it negligently allowed computer records to be stolen, which records contain medical information on 2.2 million patients of the University of Utah hospital, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Thelma Keachie brings the action pursuant to Rule 23, Utah R. Civ. P. on behalf of at least 1.3. million persons who have suffered theft of their social security numbers. The class consists additionally of at least 900,000 other persons who have suffered theft of medical and financial information related to medical care, but who have not suffered theft of Social Security numbers. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- general damages for all class members in a reasonable sum; -- special damages for the cost in time and money of monitoring and repairing class members' credit reports for the lifetime of individuals who have suffered theft of their Social Security numbers and for five years for all other living individuals, with an estimated total of no less than $4 million; -- special damages to establish a facility to monitor the use of any information pertaining to individuals who are deceased and are represented in the class by their heirs, with an estimated cost of $1 million; -- special damages to aid persons who are eligible to change their Social Security numbers, with an estimated cost of $1 million; -- special damages for the cost of monitoring the use of other private personal identifying information such as medical information, information about employment and insurance carriers and information about diagnoses and procedures for the lifetime of all class members, with an estimated cost of $4 million; -- such other special damages as may be determined by the court; -- costs and expenses incurred in this proceeding; -- interest on all special damages, and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper under the circumstances; and -- if further discovery reveals evidence of grossly negligent or intentionally wrongful conduct of defendants, punitive damages against defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $1 million. The suit is "Thelma Keachie et al. v. Perpetual Storage, Inc., Case No. 080911417," filed in the Third Judicial District of Salt Lake County, State of Utah. Representing the plaintiff is: Clark Newhall, Esq. Law Offices of Clark Newhall MD JD 57 West 200 South, Suite 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: 801-363-8888 Fax: 801-596-8888 QUAKER FABRIC: Displaced Workers Win WARN Act Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Quaker Fabric Corp. (NASDAQ: QFAB) has reached a tentative settlement of approximately $1 million in a class action lawsuit alleging that the company violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining, or WARN, Act, Michael Holtzman of The Herald News reports. The report recounts that the suit was a response to the 62-year- old Quaker manufacturing company shutting its doors a year ago this week without providing 60 days notice to workers, as required under the WARN. About 700 former workers signed onto the suit, filed on behalf of the final workforce, which at one time numbered 3,000, when it was the city's largest employer. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq., of Outten & Golden, said that the preliminary agreement, reached in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Delaware, gives the Quaker plaintiffs the first $100,000 for administrative expenses and $200,000 of available cash as priority creditors. They also receive one-third of the remaining funds, about $700,000, Ms. Roupinian said. It's Ms. Roupinian's understanding the other two-thirds of Quaker's estate would go mostly to Quaker vendors, Herald News says. While the amount sought was considerably more -- approximately $7 million based upon 60 days of wages and benefits to workers – Ms. Roupinian further said the expected payout reflects the "limited assets" in the Quaker estate. She indicated that assets are in the $2.5 million range. "The parties in bankruptcy thought enough of the claim to ascribe it $1 million of the dwindling remaining assets of what was once Quaker Fabric," she said. Attorneys fees and expenses will lower the approximately $1,000 per person the award would provide, Ms. Roupinian said. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 11 before U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Kevin Gross to finalize the settlement. About Quaker Fabric Based in Fall River, Mass., Quaker Fabric Corp. (NASDAQ: QFAB) -- http://www.quakerfabric.com/-- designs, manufactures, and markets woven upholstery fabrics primarily for residential furniture manufacturers and jobbers. It also develops and manufactures specialty yarns, including chenille, taslan, and spun products for use in the production of its fabrics, as well as for sale to distributors of craft yarns, and manufacturers of homefurnishings and other products. The company is one of the largest producers of Jacquard upholstery fabrics. Quaker Fabric sells its products through sales representatives andindependent commissioned sales agents in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and internationally. The company and its affiliate, Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River, filed for chapter 11 protection on Aug. 16, 2007 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 07-11146). John D. Sigel, Esq. at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP and Joel A. Waite, Esq. at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP are co-counsels to the Debtors. Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions is the Debtors' claims agent. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has selected Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, as its bankruptcy counsel and Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, as co- counsel. The Debtors' schedules reflect total assets of US$41,375,191 and total liabilities of US$54,435,354. SAVIENT PHARMA: Third Circuit Affirms N.J. Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing, with prejudice, the second consolidated amended complaint in a class action lawsuit originally filed on December 20, 2002, against Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and three of its former officers. The District Court's decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to set forth particularized facts, through direct or circumstantial evidence, which give rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted with intent to defraud, recklessness or a conscious disregard of the truth. Case Background The original class-action complaints were filed in December 2002 and January 2003 against Bio-Technology General Corp., now known as Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. They were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of investors who had purchased shares of Bio-Technology General during an alleged Class Period of April 19, 1999, through Aug. 2, 2002. The complaints alleged that the investors had been defrauded because, on Sept. 25, 2002, the company filed restated year-end and quarterly reports of its earnings and related financial statements for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, which the company had previously announced would be forthcoming in its Form 8-K and accompanying press release issued Aug. 2, 2002. In September 2003, the actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were appointed in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation which provided for the lead plaintiff to file an amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint on Sept. 25, 2003. On August 10, 2005, citing the failure of the amended complaint to set forth particularized facts that give rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted with the required state of mind, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the action without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. On Oct. 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, again seeking unspecified compensatory damages, purporting to set forth particularized facts to support their allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by us and our former officers. On Dec. 13, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On Oct. 26, 2006, the District Court sided with the company and dismissed, with prejudice, the second amended complaint. The District Court declined to allow the plaintiffs to file another amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2008). The suit is "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-6048," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Harold A. Ackerman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. (jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com) Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rives, LLC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5003 Phone: 973-623-3000 Representing the company is: Roger B. Kaplan, Esq. (kaplanr@gtlaw.com) Greenberg Traurig, LLP 200 Campus Drive, P.O. Box 677 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677 Phone: 973-360-7957 Fax: 973-301-8410 SULPICIO LINES: Romblon Execs. Mull Suit Over Capsized Ferry ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Nanette Tansingco of San Fernando, Sibuyan Island, in the Philippines, said the province of Romblon, where many of the victims of the sinking of the ferry Princess of the Stars have washed ashore, has been "looking seriously" at filing a class suit against Sulpicio Lines Inc., Inquirer.net reports. Sulpicio Lines is the owner of 24,000-ton MV Princess of the Stars, which ran aground and capsized on June 21 after typhoon Frank (also known as Typhoon Fengshen) battered certain parts of the country, press reports had said. The ferry held more than 800 passengers and crew members when it set sail from Manila to Cebu on the night of June 20. As pointed out in various press reports, San Fernando covers the coastal area where the Princess of the Stars sank, bringing down with it -- aside from the hundreds of passengers and crew -- the highly toxic pesticide endosulfan in its cargo hold. "There's the direct and indirect cost to us: the direct cost include the actual cost of rescue and retrieval and the indirect cost is the fear of the people and their lost livelihood. And we are already consulting with our lawyers how to do that. We are also balancing our actions right now because of course, we are also on the edge," Mayor Tansingco said. The mayor echoed a previous statement by Romblon congressman Rep. Eleandro Jesus Madrona who, according to Inquirer, said that they are mulling the filing a class suit against Sulpicio Lines because of the tremendous and disastrous aftermath of the tragedy. A Philippine Star report says that the local government intends to seek damages from the shipping operator, which was involved in at least four previous sea tragedies, including the December 1987 sinking of the M/V Dona Paz that left more than 4,000 people dead. Rep. Madrona expressed dismay over the delays in the recovery operation because of Sulpicio Lines' failure to fully disclose the dangerous cargo the ship was carrying. "I was really depressed when I heard that there's endosulfan inside the ship because with [contamination] remains a threat to our waters for as long as the ship is there," Mayor Tansingco told the Inquirer. The mayor added that Sulpicio Lines promised to pay back the town's expenses in the past weeks' search, rescue and retrieval operations. TEXAS: Immigration Hold Policy in Nacogdoches County Challenged --------------------------------------------------------------- Nacogdoches County (Texas) is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas over allegations that it unconstitutionally imprisons foreign- born people through its "immigration hold" policy, CourtHouse News Service reports. The suit is for equitable relief and damages arising out of the plaintiff's unlawful detention in the Nacogdoches County Jail in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Named plaintiff Adan Arturo Hernandez says he was jailed for six days after paying $270 bond for a Class C misdemeanor punishable only by a fine. The plaintiff commences this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which provides in relevant part for redress for every person within the jurisdiction of the United States for the deprivation, under color of state law, of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The plaintiff seeks an order declaring unlawful and enjoining defendant's policy of holding foreign-born persons, like the plaintiff, in the Nacogdoches County Jail due to "immigration detainers" or "immigration holds" after such persons would otherwise have been released, compensatory damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee and his costs and expenses herein as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988. The plaintiff seeks identical relief on behalf of all members of the class he seeks to represent. In this action, the plaintiff seeks certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 as the representative of a class consisting of all foreign-born persons who have been, are being or will be held in the Nacogdoches County Jail after they would otherwise have been released, based on "immigration detainers" or "immigration holds." The plaintiff asks the Court to: -- certify the proposed class; -- enter a declaratory judgment declaring that defendant's practice of holding foreign-born persons in the Nacogdoches County Jail based on immigration detainers or immigration holds is unlawful and violates the constitutional and statutory rights of the members of the class; -- enter a permanent injunction in behalf of the class against the defendant, enjoining the continuance of the acts, omissions and policies complained in the suit; -- enter judgment in favor of the class who has been subjected to the policies, practices and procedures challenged herein, against the defendant for compensatory damages; -- grant the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fee and his costs and expenses herein as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 against the defendant; and -- grant the class members pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any and all additional relief to which they may appear to be entitled. The suit is "Adan Arturo Hernandez, et al. v. Nacogdoches County, Texas, Case No. 9:08cv119," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Representing the plaintiff is: Richard S. Fischer, Esq. The Law Offices of Richard S. Fischer 114 South Pecan Street Nacogdoches, TX 75961 Phone: 936-564-2222 Fax: 936-564-1346 TOYOTA CANADA: Quebec's OPC Issues Favorable Ruling in Fees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quebec's Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC) and the Automobile Protection Association announced a favorable ruling in a class action over fees charged by Toyota Canada to transfer extended warranties. Toyota charged from $25 to $200 to transfer its Extra-Care extended warranty to second and subsequent owners. The decision by Quebec's Court of Appeal is now final, since Toyota did not request permission to appeal within the permitted 60 day delay. The APA and the OPC argued that warranty transfer fees are prohibited under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, which requires the warranty to follow the automobile automatically. The Court of Appeal panel of three judges unanimously upheld that position, reversing an earlier decision in favour of Toyota by the Superior Court. "This decision confirms the principle that auto warranties are attached to the vehicle and follow it automatically when the vehicle is resold or transferred," said APA President George Iny. Marc Migneault, a lawyer with Quebec's OPC added that "the Court of Appeal recognized that, not just automakers, but all types of manufacturers and businesses cannot offer less coverage in their warranties than required by law in Quebec." The decision affects consumers who paid to transfer a Toyota vehicle warranty between March 31, 1996 and February 29, 2000. (Subsequently, Toyota dropped its warranty transfer fees across Canada.) Toyota estimates 6,000 consumers in Quebec are affected, and are owed a total of about $300,000. The Court of Appeal has sent the case back to Superior Court to determine the actual number of claims and amounts owed to consumers. APA President George Iny said it is too early for consumers to send a claim to Toyota, as the case is still before the courts. The APA recommends consumers who believe they are entitled to a refund and have not already contacted the Association, should do so via the APA Web site: http://www.apa.ca WALGREEN CO: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- Walgreen Co. is facing a purported securities fraud class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's July 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008. The suit was filed on April 16, 2008, by the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension Fund against the company and its chief executive officer and chief operating officer. It was brought on behalf of purchasers of company common stock during the period between June 25, 2007, and Nov. 29, 2007. The plaintiff charges the company, its CEO and its COO with violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that they misled investors by failing to disclose declining rates of growth in generic drug sales and a contract dispute with a pharmacy benefits manager that allegedly had a negative impact on earnings. The suit is "Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension Fund v. Walgreen Co. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-02162," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Joan B. Gottschall, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. (LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com) Miller Law LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-332-3400 Fax: 312-676-2676 Representing the defendants is: Alan Norris Salpeter, Esq. (asalpeter@dl.com) Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP 180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-784-8088 New Securities Fraud Cases APPLE INC: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. has commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Apple, Inc.'s common stock during the period between June 29, 2003, and June 29, 2006. The Complaint alleges as follows: Apple's share price dropped 14% in the two weeks after Apple's admission of backdating, erasing more than $7 billion in share value. It is this loss that the plaintiffs hope to recover. In December 2006, Apple said that as a result of its internal investigation, it would restate its financial results to include "an additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $84 million after tax ($105 million pretax), including $4 million and $7 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2005, respectively." The company said it had found no irregular grants after Dec. 31, 2002. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from June 27, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-952-0602 877-495-1877 FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund who purchased the fund between June 6, 2005, and June 5, 2008. The complaint charges Fidelity Management & Research Company, among others, with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that on or about August 23, 2002, the Defendants began offering shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund pursuant to an initial registration statement, filed with the SEC as a Form 485BPOS. The complaint alleges that the Defendants solicited investors to purchase shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund by making statements that described the Fund as a fund that: (i) "Seeks a high level of current income consistent with the preservation of capital"; (ii) "allocates its assets across different market sectors and maturities"; (iii) has a "similar overall interest rate risk to the Lehman Brothers(R) 6 Month Swap Index"; and (iv) is geared toward the "preservation of capital". As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because the Defendants did not adequately disclose the risks associated with investing in the Fund, including, for example, that the Fund was: (i) failing to compete with the Lehman Brothers(R) 6 Month Swap Index; and (ii) so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-back securities. As alleged in the complaint, by June 11, 2007, the Defendants slowly began lowering the value of the share price for the Fund. By November 15, 2007, the value of the per-share price was reduced below $9. Since then the shares were trading as low as $8.25. Interested parties may move the court no later than August 4, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. (bronstein@bgandg.com) Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com) Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC New York City Office (Main Office) 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: 212-697-6484 Fax: 212-697-7296 FIFTH THIRD: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio --------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Fifth Third Bancorp. (NYSE:FTB-PA) (NYSE:FTB-PC) common stock during the period between October 19, 2007, and June 17, 2008. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Fifth Third Bancorp's financial condition and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Fifth Third Bancorp securities. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from July 3, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-952-0602 877-495-1877 FIRST AMERICAN: Brualdi Law Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. disclosed that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of First American Corporation. and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of First American common stock, who purchased between April 26, 2006, and November 6, 2007, inclusive. The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public in its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission filings. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, First American and certain of the Company's officers and directors engaged in an illegal scheme with Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WaMu") to artificially inflate appraisals of homes for use in connection with mortgages issued by WaMu. The complaint also alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company's management wrongfully reported increased earnings from appraisal fees and inaccurately reassured investors that internal controls were adequate. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from July 3, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-952-0602 877-495-1877 GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Gildan Activewear Inc. from August 2, 2007, through April 29, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges Gildan and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Gildan is a supplier of activewear for the wholesale imprinted sportswear market in the United States, Canada and Europe. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company's Dominican Republic textile facility was underperforming; (2) that as a result, sales of the Company's activewear were performing below expectations; (3) that the Company had materially overstated its financial results by failing to timely write-down an impairment in the value of its inventories; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On April 29, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it was reducing its second quarter 2008 earnings guidance from $0.42 per share to $0.35 per share, and reducing its fiscal 2008 earnings guidance from $1.85-$1.90 to $1.45- $1.50 per share. The Company stated that this was due to lower than projected unit sales growth in activewear (as a result of a shortfall in production for the Dominican Republic textile facility), a write-down of inventories of discontinued retail product-lines, and additional costs incurred to service mass- market retailers during the integration of retail information systems. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $10.99 per share, or 30.6 percent, to close on April 29, 2008 at $24.93 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Schiffrin Barroway, which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. David M. Promisloff, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com HEALTHWAYS INC: Brualdi Files Tennessee Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Healthways, Inc. common stock during the period between October 17, 2007, and February 26, 2008. The complaint charges Healthways and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from June 5, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-952-0602 877-495-1877 NEXCEN BRANDS: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of NexCen Brands, Inc., common stock from May 10, 2007, through May 19, 2008, inclusive. The complaint asserts claims against defendants NexCen, David S. Oros, Robert W. D'Loren and David B. Meister for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the statements made during the Class Period by NexCen and its executives were materially false and misleading - specifically including, but not limited to, the omission of critical information regarding the existence of an accelerated-redemption feature in the loan the Company used to finance its acquisition of the Great American Cookie Company, which resulted in a lack of liquidity so extreme as to cause questions about the Company's ability to continue to operate. This information, along with other critical information regarding the financial state of the Company that had been undisclosed to the public during the Class Period, was released by the Company on May 19, 2008, and NexCen shares closed that day after a drop of 77.08% - from $1.95 to $0.58. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 28, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. (dbunch@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: 888-240-0775 202-408-4600 ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F. Dy, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *