/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080721.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 21, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 143 Headlines ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Mom Sues Over Bat-Infested Halls AMERICAN EQUITY: $16.4-Million Settlement Gets Final Approval AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs for Risk of Loss of Control Hazard BOIS D'ARC: Sale to Stone Energy Faces Opposition in Nevada Suit CABLE TV: Programmers, Distributors to Appeal "Brantley" Ruling CALIFORNIA: Settles Lawsuit Over Young Parolees' Rights CALIFORNIA PIZZA: May Pay $500,000 to Settle Workers' Lawsuit COUNTRY MUTUAL: Judge Hylla Freezes Medical Underpayment Lawsuit DIRECTV GROUP: Settles Ill. Suit Over Portable DVD Player Promo EMC CORP: Former Official's Revelation Could Help "Remein" Case ENTERGY CORP: Texas Electric Power Billing Lawsuit Continues GANZ USA: Sued Over Webkinz Plush Line Stocking Conditions GOOGLE INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over 'Parked' Site Fraud GOOGLE INC: Faces Lawsuit in California for Overcharged AdWords ILLINOIS: Human Services Dept. Sued Over Refused Nursing Care INDYMAC BANK: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California Court JACK DISTRIBUTION: Undeclared Content Prompts Rize 2 Caps Recall NEXCEN BRANDS: July 28 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline NOKIA CORP: Faces California Lawsuit Over Sale of Used Phone O'HARE AIRPORT EMPLOYERS: Sued for Cheating on Immigrants' Wages PARMALAT: Court Notifies Investors of $40MM Partial Settlement PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Faces Wash. Suit Over Underpaid Claims ROXANNE LABS: Recalls Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension ROYAL DUTCH: Reaches $120M Settlement in N.J. Securities Lawsuit STUDIO RTA: Recalls TV Stands Due to Tip-over Hazard TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit in Illinois Over False Advertising UNITED NATIONS: Court Hears Arguments in Suit Over 1995 Genocide * Survey Says Securities Fraud Suits v. Life Science Cos. Up 56% New Securities Fraud Cases HUNTSMAN CORP: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ********* ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Mom Sues Over Bat-Infested Halls -------------------------------------------------------- A Utah County mother has filed a lawsuit against Alpine School District, claiming the district and school administrators failed to warn students and parents that Lehi High School was infested with bats last year, Salt Lake Tribune reports. Traci Turner told Salt Lake Tribune that she filed the lawsuit on behalf of her son, Chase Jackson, who caught a bat at school in September 2007 and played with it for two hours. The boy was later treated for possible rabies exposure. "The defendant did nothing to warn students of the severe danger that bats pose to humans and to instruct students to avoid contact with the bats or the bats' after-effects," said court papers filed in the 4th District Court and obtained by the Salt Lake Tribune. According to the report, school officials dispute Ms. Turner's claim. They claim that they partnered with the Utah County Health Department to rid the school of bats as soon as they learned that hundreds of the creatures had nested in the building. "We did inform parents and students of the situation; we let them all know that we would pay for, if any of them felt like they had been exposed, pay for them to get a shot," said Ronda Bromley, spokeswoman for Alpine School District. "We were very proactive as far as our communication with parents and students." Over a two-week period, announcements were also made over a school intercom telling students not to touch dead bats and to report any contact to teachers, the report relates. The school paid out more than $6,800 in rabies vaccination compensation for seven students, Ms. Bromley said. However, Ms. Turner's attorney, Matthew Howell, Esq., contended that his client only learned about the problem when her son brought a health department letter home from school explaining that he could be at risk for rabies. The report explains that rabies is a fatal disease. Symptoms of the disease include central nervous system damage and neurological problems, according to Dr. Joseph Miner, director of the Utah County Health Department. Treatment for the disease includes five shots of vaccine over 28 days and one gamma globulin shot. It is unknown if Ms. Turner's son was bitten or if the bat he touched had rabies, the report says. To be safe, he went through the five-shot regimen for rabies exposure. "You treat either way," said Dr. Miner. "You don't wait to see if someone gets rabies." Ms. Turner's lawsuit was filed as a class-action so other injured students could join in. AMERICAN EQUITY: $16.4-Million Settlement Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- William F. McMurry, a Nationally Board Certified Specialist in Medical Malpractice and Legal Malpractice, obtained final court approval of a settlement in the first nationwide class action suit ever certified by a Kentucky state court judge. The settlement gives economic and equitable relief as many as 24,000 purchasers of deferred annuities. The Settlement is valued at approximately $16,400,000. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company was accused of participating in a Living Trust mill. Working in concert with a Dallas-based insurance and legal marketing firm (Advanced Legal Marketing Services and Addison Insurance Marketing) and local attorneys, agents persuaded senior citizens to buy a Living Trust out of fear that probate proceedings were costly and not in their family's best interest. After the victims purchased the Living Trust, agents of the insurance and marketing companies, appearing as representatives of the law firm, approached the victims and encouraged the victim to sell their current investments and purchase deferred annuities from American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company of Des Moines, Iowa. The deferred annuities were often sold to elderly couples with 20-year terms, even though they were approaching their life expectancy. Surrender charges for early withdrawal were substantial. As part of the Settlement, American Equity agreed that it would no longer sell deferred annuities where the Company has knowledge that sales leads were generated through the sale and marketing of living trusts. The Settlement offers Class Members a new option in connection with their annuity contracts, namely, the right to immediately annuitize funds, with a 2.4% bonus added to the value of their policies. American Equity also agreed to waive the penalties and forfeitures, such as surrender charges, that Class Members who decide to annuitize immediately would incur but for the Settlement. American Equity agreed that Class Members who claim that an annuity sale was unsuitable or based on a misrepresentation, the Claimant will receive appropriate relief, which under the Settlement "shall include a full refund of premiums plus interest, the current policy value, modification of surrender charges, or other appropriate relief." In addition, the Settlement provides that any Class Member who submits a claim form, and who was 79 or older when he or she purchased a deferred annuity from American Equity, will receive the opportunity to withdraw up to 25% of the policy value for each of the next four years, penalty free. William F. McMurry served as lead class counsel, along with other attorneys serving as co-counsel. To contact Mr. McMurry: William F. McMurry, Esq. William F. McMurry & Associates 4801 Olympia Park Plaza, Suite 4800 Louisville, KY 40241 Phone: 502-326-9000 Fax: 502-326-9001 e-mail: info@courtroomlaw.com Web site: http://www.courtroomlaw.com/ AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs for Risk of Loss of Control Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- American Honda Motor Co. Inc., of Torrance, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is recalling about 42,000 Model Year 2007-2008 TRX 420 Rancher All-Terrain Vehicles. The company said that if the ATV's rubber CV (constant velocity) boots get punctured or torn the joint will become contaminated and severe binding of the CV joints could occur, resulting in the sudden loss of steering control. This poses a risk of injury or death to riders. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Model Year 2007-08 Honda TRX420 ATVs, also known as the Honda FourTrax Rancher 4X4. These are adult-size ATVs designed for use by riders age 16 and older. The recalled ATVs are available in red, black, olive, and camouflage. The Honda name and wing logo are printed on the fuel tank. The model year is printed on a label located on the frame behind the left front wheel. The model name "Rancher" is on a label at the left rear of the ATV. These recalled ATVs were manufactured in the United States and were being sold by Honda ATV dealers nationwide from January 2007 through May 2008 for between $5,300 and $5,600. A picture of the recalled ATVs is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08595.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these recalled ATVs and contact any Honda ATV dealer to make an appointment for a free repair. Registered owners of the recalled ATVs have been sent direct notices. For additional information, consumers can contact Honda toll- free at 866-784-1870 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.powersports.honda.com/ BOIS D'ARC: Sale to Stone Energy Faces Opposition in Nevada Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bois d'Arc Energy is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court in Clark County, Nevada, wanting the company's sale to Stone Energy Offshore for $1.7 billion enjoined and claiming the deal cheats shareholders, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Bois d'Arc to enjoin the proposed buyout of the public-owned shares of the company, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of April 30, 2007. On April 30, the defendants announced that the company's board had approved the proposed merger. Under the terms of the deal, owners of Bois d'Arc are to receive $13.65 in cash and 0.165 share of Stone for each of their shares. As of the same date, when the deal was announced, the total consideration offered in the proposed merger was valued at approximately $1.7 billion, or $24.85 per share. Instead of receiving a premium above the market price (which is to be expected in any deal where the purchaser is obtaining majority control of the acquired company), plaintiff and the class members would actually be giving up their Bois d'Arc shares at a significant discount to the market price if the proposed transaction is consummated. According to the complaint, the prices offered in the proposed merger is unfair given the company's solid financial position and its opportunities for future growth. Instead of obtaining the best reasonably available price in this change of control transaction, the individual defendants agreed to a transaction that will leave the stockholders of the company in a worse financial position than if the individual defendants had engaged in an adequate sale process or otherwise determined to continue to operate Bois d'Arc as a public operation. In addition, certain defendants have engaged in self-dealing by negotiating the terms of a "participation agreement" with Stone for their own benefit at the same time they were negotiating with Stone for a buyout price for Bois d'Arc shares. Moreover, in violation of their fiduciary duty of disclosure, the individual defendants are soliciting shareholder votes in favor of the proposed merger on the basis of a proxy containing omissions of material facts. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed merger to rescind the proposed merger in the events of its consummation. The circumstances described that the defendants have violated their fiduciary duties resulting in the terms of the merger agreement that are grossly unfair to the plaintiff and the putative class. The suit is "Gail Packard, et al. v. M. Jay Allison, et al., Case No. A567393," filed in the U.S. District Court in Clark County, Nevada. Representing the plaintiff is: Joni S. Jacobs, Esq. McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry 1630 S. Commerce Street, Suite A-1 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: 702-386-5107 CABLE TV: Programmers, Distributors to Appeal "Brantley" Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for programming providers and distributors will appeal a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in the matter, "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al., Case No. CV07-06101," Linda Haugsted writes for the Broadcast Newsroom. Broadcast Newsroom recounts that on July 7, 2008, Judge Christina A. Snyder issued a decision in the case that would let consumers challenge, on antitrust grounds, the practice of selling video programming in bundles rather than on a channel- by-channel basis. Several companies have filed an appeal in connection to Judge Snyder's recent ruling, according to the report. Originally, attorneys for companies including NBC Universal, Viacom, The Walt Disney Co., Fox Entertainment Group, Time Warner Inc., Comcast, Coxcom Inc., The DirecTV Group, EchoStar Satellite (Dish Network), Charter Communications and Cablevision Systems had asked the judge to dismiss the suit. However, Judge Snyder found that there were issues raised in the suit which should be argued at trial and not handled in a motion to dismiss. Case Background The antitrust lawsuit was filed on Sept. 20, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against cable and satellite providers and programming content providers (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2008). Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are: -- Rob Brantley, -- Darryn Cooke, -- William Costley, -- Beverly Costley, -- Christina Hills, -- Michael B. Kovac, -- Michelle Navarrette, -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and -- Joseph Vranich. The defendants in the case are: -- NBC Universal, Inc., -- Viacom Inc., -- The Walt Disney Company, -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., -- Time Warner Inc., -- Time Warner Cable Inc., -- Comcast Corp., -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., -- Cox Communiations, Inc., -- The Directv Group, Inc., -- Echostar Satellite LLC, -- Charter Communications, Inc., and -- Cablevision Systems Corp. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages for the loss of their ability to pick and choose the specific channels to which they wish to subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a la carte basis. The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video service provided by one of the distributor defendants. The plaintiffs brought the action under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, for treble damages, injunctive relief, costs of suit and a reasonable attorneys' fee, against defendants for the injuries sustained by plaintiffs and class members by reason of defendants' violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2 (Class Action Reporter, June 25, 2008). The plaintiffs brought the suit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all persons residing in the United States who subscribe to "expanded basic cable" provided by one of the cable television or direct broadcast satellite television provider defendants within four years of the date of the filing of the complaint. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants have engaged in collaborative activity to preclude cable/satellite subscribers from securing "a la carte" programming apart from "basic" cable service; (b) whether, as a result of the antitrust violation as set forth in the complaint, plaintiffs and the class are entitled to damages, equitable relief or other relief, and the amount and nature of such relief; (c) whether defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, making injunctive relief appropriate; (d) whether a class can be certified pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3); and (e) whether, alternatively, a class can be certified pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). The plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, request: -- that this matter be certified as a class action with the class defined set forth in the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), or in the alternative Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), and that the named plaintiffs be appointed class representatives and their attorneys be appointed class counsel; -- that judgment be entered against defendants, and each of them jointly and severally, for the treble damages as a result of defendants' violations of Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and that plaintiffs be awarded a reasonable attorneys' fee and the costs of suit as required by Section 4 of the Clayton Act; -- that the court enter an order requiring defendants, and each of them, to immediately cease the wrongful conduct as set forth in the complaint and specifically enjoining defendants from unlawfully bundling expanded basic cable channels and ordering defendant cable providers and direct broadcast satellite providers to notify their subscribers that they each can purchase "a la carte" (separately) except for "basic cable"; and -- for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and proper. In December 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On March 12, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, with permission for the plaintiffs to replead their complaint. On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint. The company then filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court held a hearing on the dismissal motion on June 16, 2008. The suit is "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com) Blecher & Collins 515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-622-4222 Representing the defendants are: Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com) Davis Polk and Wardwell 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 650-752-2005 John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com) Arnold and Porter 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513 Phone: 213-243-4000 - and - Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-663-6321 CALIFORNIA: Settles Lawsuit Over Young Parolees' Rights ------------------------------------------------------- California settled a federal class action lawsuit that accused the state of violating juvenile offenders' constitutional rights, the Associated Press reports. According to the AP, the settlement requires the state to begin giving young offenders the same swift hearings that are given adults who are accused of violating their parole. To recall, attorneys alleged in the class-action lawsuit that young offenders often were not told of the exact charges against them until they had been incarcerated for weeks or months. Often, those charges would change unexpectedly, and juveniles were routinely denied the right to present witnesses or other evidence, the suit alleged. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton of Sacramento ruled in September 2007 that the state violated some juvenile offenders' due process rights by keeping them in custody for months before they received a hearing on whether they should be sent back to a state juvenile facility. The report notes that Judge Karlton also found that more than half were accused of technical violations of their parole, and in most cases the offenders were eventually released to simply continue their parole. The AP says the settlement reached by the parties requires that the alleged offenders be given a probable cause hearing within three weeks and a final decision within another 35 days on whether they violated their parole. It also requires that all alleged juvenile parole violators be represented by an attorney. In addition, the settlement includes special provisions for juveniles with disabilities. "We believe that this agreement will end up saving the state money, as juveniles will no longer spend months on end in DJJ (Division of Juvenile Justice) facilities awaiting hearings," one of the inmates' attorneys, Geoffrey Holtz, Esq., said in a statement. "Youth were warehoused at facilities for months before they received a hearing, even for technical violations of parole such as drinking alcohol or traffic violations." The AP report relates that the settlement still needs Judge Karlton's approval. CALIFORNIA PIZZA: May Pay $500,000 to Settle Workers' Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- A company that owns five Bakersfield Pizza Huts has tentatively agreed to pay $500,000 to settle a class action lawsuit over allegations of missed meal and rest breaks, Bakersfield Now reports. The suit accuses the Fresno-based company, operating under the name of California Pizza, of understaffing its Pizza Hut restaurants so that employees had to cut short or skip breaks. An attorney for the company confirmed to Bakersfield Now that a settlement had been reached, but declined to give details. COUNTRY MUTUAL: Judge Hylla Freezes Medical Underpayment Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla froze a class action lawsuit filed the Lakin Law Firm against Country Mutual Insurance so that Kevin Hoerner, Esq., of Belleville, can proceed with a similar suit in St. Clair County, Steve Korris writes for the St. Clair Record. According to the report, Judge Hylla on July 10 granted Country Mutual's motion to stay the suit that Lakins filed in 2007 on behalf of chiropractor Richard Coy. The suit claims that the company underpaid on medical bills from accidents. Judge Hylla found that the parties and issues in Mr. Coy's suit were substantially similar to those in "Roche v. Country Mutual," a suit that Mr. Hoerner filed in St. Clair County last year. Judge Hylla wrote that "duplicity of litigation is to be avoided because it may be greatly inconvenient and wasteful even if not designed to be vexatious or harassing." "This Court thinks the Roche case may ultimately encompass all claims in the present case; but it may not," the judge wrote. "Therefore, this case will remain on file, for now, to best deal with the contingency that substantial claims may be unresolved through Roche." St. Clair Record notes that St. Clair County Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson presides over the Roche case. Judge Gleeson has set an Aug. 6 hearing on a motion to dismiss the Roche suit. DIRECTV GROUP: Settles Ill. Suit Over Portable DVD Player Promo --------------------------------------------------------------- The DIRECTV Group, Inc., settled a purported class action lawsuit filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois over a promise of a free portable DVD player for new subscribers, The Belleville News Democrat reports. The suit, which was filed on May 9, 2007, by Belleville attorney Christopher T. Kolker, Esq., claims that DIRECTV promises a portable flat-screen DVD player worth up to $129 for a subscription to its television services (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2008). However, the suit states that the company sends new customers either nothing at all or a traditional full-sized stationary DVD player that must be connected to a TV, and it's worth considerably less than the DVD player advertised. Represented by Brad Lakin, Esq., of Wood River, Mr. Kolker claims the company advertised the incentive as having a value of up to $169 in some instances. However, Mr. Kolker contends that the Sungale DVD2028 player he received is available online for $29.99. The case, which alleges that DirecTV breached contract, was brought on behalf of all persons who entered into a programming agreement with DIRECTV and who, within eight weeks of submitting a valid redemption form, have not received a portable DVD player with a value of at least the advertised value. According to the complaint, "Some of the advertisements purport to limit the promise 'while supplies last.' However, defendants either failed to provide the promised DVD players even while supplies lasted, never had supplies of the promised portable DVD players, or knowingly and intentionally continued to run the advertisements well after supplies had been depleted." Mr. Kolker claims that the DVD was advertised with phrases such as, "Bigger screen for easier viewing," "Light enough to take wherever you go," "High-output stereo speakers," "One-inch super-slim design," and "Complete portability with car adapter." The complaint further states, "Unlike the portable DVD player that defendant advertised and promised, the Sungale DVD2028 cannot be utilized without connecting it to a separate, stand- alone monitor, it has no car adapter and cannot operate on DC power in a vehicle; it has no speakers and produces no sound." Additionally, the complaint claims there are at least 50 members in the class and that joinder in a single action is impracticable. It states that the questions of law and fact common to all class members are: -- whether defendants' conduct resulted in a promise of a free portable DVD player with a value of at least the advertised value; -- whether defendants' conduct constituted a contractual offer or acceptance of a contractual offer; -- whether the class made or accepted a contractual offer by entering into programming commitments and submitting the redemption forms provided by defendants; -- whether defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of contract; and -- whether the class members have sustained damages and, if so, the proper measure of their damages. According to Belleville News Democrat, a settlement was recently reached in the matter, which was approved by the court on July 15, 2008. In general, the agreement will award customers with two free DVD players. Specifically, under the settlement, subscribers who submitted redemption forms will receive free portable DVD players, as well as traditional stationary DVD players. Those customers who received a traditional stationary DVD player (valued at about $29) instead of the portable player that was promised, will get to keep those DVD players in addition to the portable ones, valued at about $129. DirecTV also paid for claims notice, claims administrative costs, attorneys' fees and legal costs. The Lakin firm will receive $200,000 for handling the case, Belleville News Democrat notes. To be eligible for the refund, class members must submit claim forms by Sept. 6. 2008, according to Belleville News Democrat. For more details, contact: Bradley M. Lakin, Esq. Lakin Law Firm PC 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229 Wood River, IL 62095-0229 Phone: 618-254-1127 800-851-5523 Fax: 618-254-0193 Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/ EMC CORP: Former Official's Revelation Could Help "Remein" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- A recent revelation by a former EMC Corp. official could strengthen a purported sexual discrimination class action lawsuit that was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, The Register reports. The suit, filed in May 28, 2004, by two women who were former sales representatives at the company, Tami Remien and Debra Fletcher, alleges discrimination and harassment (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2007). The women specifically allege that EMC's discriminatory conduct included failure to hire and promote women, failure to credit women for their experience on the same basis as male employees, systemically paying women lower wages, creating an environment hostile and offensive to women, making employment decisions based on gender stereotypes, and defaming women to their clients, co-workers and corporate partners. The plaintiffs argue that the resulting lack of opportunity for career advancement and hostile work environment forced them to resign from EMC. They specifically charge EMC district manager Rick Otten with sexual harassment and discriminatory actions. The lawsuit seeks class-action status as 12 other EMC saleswomen have also filed sex-discrimination cases. Recent Developments The Register says that ex-EMC VP Paul Goetz, in papers filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claimed that EMC ignored internal discrimination claims from female employees whilst fighting a class action lawsuit filed by other female employees. Mr. Goetz, who left EMC in November 2007, claimed he was demoted and placed in a hostile environment after forwarding discrimination complaints from female staff in his consulting part of EMC up the management chain in 2006. According to The Register, Mr. Goetz is claiming that his discrimination message was stifled because it would have provided support for the women in the class-action case. The suit is "Remien, et al. v. EMC Corp., Case No. 1:04-cv- 03727," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Charles P. Kocoras, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Mary Stowell, Esq. Stowell & Friedman, Ltd. 321 S. Plymouth Court, Ste. 1400 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-431-0888 Fax: 312-431-0228 e-mail: mstowell@sfltd.com Web site: http://www.stowellandfriedman.com Representing the defendants is: Barbara B. Brown, Esq. (barbarabrown@paulhastings.com) Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20004-2400 Phone: 202-508-9500 ENTERGY CORP: Texas Electric Power Billing Lawsuit Continues ------------------------------------------------------------ Entergy Corp. and several of its affiliates continue to face a purported class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Texas retail customers who were billed and paid for electric power. The lawsuit was filed in August 2003 before the district court of Chambers County, Texas, by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class apparently of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc., who were billed and paid for electric power from Jan. 1, 1994, to the present. The named defendants include Entergy Corp., Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Entergy Gulf States was not named as a defendant, but is alleged to be a co-conspirator. The court granted Entergy Gulf States' request to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price gouging accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants while rejecting and reselling to off-system utilities less expensive power offered and purchased from off-system suppliers and generated by the Entergy system. In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power. The plaintiffs estimate that customers in Texas were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power. They seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits. In September 2003, the Entergy defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and in October 2003, filed a pleading seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. In October 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. In January 2004, the federal court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the lawsuit, and remanded the case to the state district court in Chambers County. In November 2004, the state district court dismissed the case based on a lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. In March 2006 the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals determined that neither the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission nor the Public Utility Commission of Texas had exclusive jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims and, on this basis, reversed the district court's dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court of appeals also affirmed the district court's decision allowing Entergy Gulf States to intervene in the case. Entergy filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for review in February 2007, and in August 2007 denied Entergy's request for rehearing. Entergy filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the decision, and the writ of certiorari request was denied in February 2008. The case is now pending again in the state district court. The company reported no development in the matter in its July 15, 2008 Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Entergy Corp. -- http://www.entergy.com/-- is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail electric distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity and it is a nuclear power generator in the U.S. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. GANZ USA: Sued Over Webkinz Plush Line Stocking Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------- California retailer Nuts For Candy filed a class-action lawsuit against vendor Ganz USA and its Canadian parent firm, alleging that the conditions Ganz sets for stocking its popular Webkinz plush line violate U.S. antitrust laws, Kids Today reports. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that Ganz's policy of requiring retailers to order $1,000 worth of its non-Webkinz "core" line in order to apply to become a Webkinz plush seller, with no guarantee of becoming an authorized Webkinz retailer, violates the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act. The report also notes that the suit claims Ganz's policy causes "monetary injury" to retailers, and argues that the company "succeeded in making it more difficult for Plaintiff and Class members to sell products that compete with Webkinz and/or the [core] Ganz products by forcing Plaintiff to stock limited retail shelf space with unwanted products, reducing Plaintiff's ability to sell competing products." According to Kids Today, the suit's class is open to all persons or entities in the U.S. who established an account with Ganz from July 1, 2006, onwards. Nuts For Candy is seeking a jury trial, the report relates. It is also requesting damages for all class members "threefold their actual antitrust damages sustained," along with reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Nuts For Candy is being represented by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Burlingame, CA. A Ganz spokesperson told Playthings, sister publication to Kids Today, that the company had no comment on the suit. GOOGLE INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over 'Parked' Site Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------- Google Inc. is defrauding its advertising customers by charging them for clicks from "parked" websites that Google knows are worthless, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose. Google places ads on Google.com and on third-party websites. Its customers are charged whenever their ad is "clicked." Ads appear on third-party websites based on keywords that the customer selects. For example, an ad for a hardware store may appear on a Web site about home improvement projects. The "parked" sites at issue in the suit, however, contain no content or useful information -- just ads. The sole purpose of those sites is to generate ad revenue for Google and the site owner, while not providing any benefit to the ad customer. "The supposed advantage of Google advertising is that it's targeted," said Brian Kabateck, Esq., Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner. "If Google is simply placing ads anywhere they can make a buck, one has to seriously question the value of their advertising program." According to the lawsuit filed on July 17, 2008, Google did not disclose to its advertisers the web addresses of the parked domains where their ads were placed and clicked on, leaving customers with no ability to evaluate, much less dispute, the validity of the clicks for which they were charged. Google failed to provide this information despite the fact that ads placed on parked domains are a constant source of invalid clicks. Google customers' ads are placed on parked domains automatically. Only after registering, and through a complicated process, can customers "opt out" and exclude their ads from being placed on parked domains. The plaintiff in this case was charged for several clicks originating from parked domains, with no additional information given by Google as to the nature or specific source of these clicks beyond the designation "parked domain." The plaintiff examined charges to his account from unknown domains labeled only as "parked domains." Upon further inspection, the plaintiff realized that he was paying for traffic originating from parked domains that had little relation to his business. The suit is "RK West, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case Number: 5:2008cv03452," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg, presiding. To contact Mr. Kabateck: Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP Engine Company No. 28 Building 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-217-5000 Fax: 213-217-5010 e-mail: info@kbklawyers.com GOOGLE INC: Faces Lawsuit in California for Overcharged AdWords --------------------------------------------------------------- Google Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on July 11, 2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over allegations that it overcharges customers of its AdWords program by charging them for ads placed on "low quality parked domain and error page Web sites," CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action for violation of Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 and unjust enrichent in connection with Google's AdWords program for Internet advertisers. The report explains that Google AdWords is a quick and simple way to advertise on Google, regardless of your budget. AdWords ads are displayed along with search results on Google, as well as on search and content sites in the growing Google Network, including AOL, EearthLink, HowStuffWorks & Blogger. With searches on Google and page views on the Google Network each day, Google AdWords ads reach a vast audience. Named plaintiff Hal Levitte, who advertised his Boston law office through Google, says 99% of Google's $16.6 billion revenue in 2007 came from advertising. Mr. Levitte adds, "Google marketed AdWords by emphasizing the high quality of sites on which AdWords ads will be placed, and did not disclose Google's practice of placing ads on parked domains and error pages." Mr. Levitte claims more than 16% of the clicks he paid for were from parked domains and error pages, from which he received no benefit. When he demanded a refund for those charges, he says Google replied that "the clicks you have been charged for appear to fit a pattern of normal activity." The plaintiff alleges that Google has concealed from and misrepresented material information to plaintiff and the class concerning the Google AdWords program. According to the suit, Google has damaged the plaintiff and the class by improperly charging them for advertising placed by Google on low-quality parked domain and error page websites. Mr. Levitte brings this nationwide class action on behalf of all persons or entities located within the United States who, within four years of the filing of this complaint, had an AdWords account with Google and who were charged for advertisements appearing on parked domain and error page websites. Mr. Levitte wants the court to rule on: (a) whether Google's representations regarding AdWords were false or misleading; (b) whether Google, in violation of applicable law and its own stated policy, charged plaintiff and the members of the class for ads that were placed on parked domain and error page websites; (c) whether Google engaged in unfair, unlawful and/or deceptive business practices; (d) whether Google failed to disclose material facts about its AdWords program; and (e) whether or not plaintiff and the members of the class have been damaged by the wrongs complained of, and if so, the measure of those damages and the nature and extent of other relief that should be provided. Mr. Levitte asks the court for: -- certification of the proposed class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; -- a declaration that the defendant engaged in the conduct alleged; -- an injunction ordering the defendant to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair, unlawful, and deceptive practices alleged; -- restitution and disgorgement on certain causes of action; -- compensatory and general damages according to proof on certain causes of action; -- special damages according to proof on certain causes of action; -- both pre- and post- judgment interest at the maximum allowable rate on any amounts awarded; -- costs of proceedings; -- reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- any and all such other and further relief that the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Hal K. Levitte, et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. C 08 03369," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiff are: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq. Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-788-4220 Fax: 415-788-0161 ILLINOIS: Human Services Dept. Sued Over Refused Nursing Care ------------------------------------------------------------- The Illinois Department of Human Services is facing a class- action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois over allegations that it illegally refuses to fund intensive nursing care for developmentally disabled adults under Medicaid, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Keith Boney brings this action against the defendant, who administers Illinois Medicaid Assistance program, to enjoin the policy and practice of denying or failing to make available funding for intensive care nursing care or access to 24-hour nursing care to persons with developmental disabilities over the age of 21 years or when they age out of the "children's program" and are funded in the "adults' program" solely because they are living in the community, even when such nursing services are medically necessary for them. The suit contends that these policy and practices violate Title XIX of the Social Security Act (which governs Medical Assistance or Medicaid) 42 USC Section 1396-1396v and 42 USC Section 1983, Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 USC Section 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 USC Sec. 794(a). The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all developmentally disabled persons who are or will be recipients of Illinois Medicaid program, who reside in Medicaid funded Community-Integrated Living Arrangement and for whom intensive nursing care or access to 24 hour nursing care is medically necessary, but who have not been provided funding for such care. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendants' have utilized criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting the plaintiff and the class to illegal discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (b) whether the defendants' practice and policy is to provide funding for developmentally disabled persons under the age of 21 years or while they are enrolled in the "children's program" to receive intensive nursing care services or access to 24-hour nursing services, when medically necessary; (c) whether the defendants' practice and policy is not to provide funding for developmentally disabled persons over the age of 21 years or when they age out of the "children's program" into the "adults' program" to receive intensive nursing care services or access to 24-hour nursing services when medically necessary if they are living in the community; (d) whether the defendants' practice an policy is to provide funding for developmentally disabled persons over the age of 21 years or when they are in the "adults program" to receive intensive nursing care services or access to 24-hour nursing services when medically necessary, only if they are living in an institution and not in the community; (e) whether the defendants violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by not providing funding for community-based services for the plaintiff and the class for intensive nursing care services or access to 24-hour nursing services when medically necessary; (f) whether a fundamental alteration of the Illinois disability programs would occur if the defendants' provided funding for community-based services for the plaintiff and the class for intensive nursing care services or access to 24-hour nursing services when medically necessary; and (g) whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act permits the defendants to reduce the level of services (funding) for disabled persons after the age of 21 or when they age out of the "children's program," even though there has been no change in their medical needs. The plaintiff requests that the court: -- certify this case to proceed as a class action; -- issue a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiff and the class and that the defendants' acts or omissions violate Title XIX of the Social Security Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; -- issue a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring the defendants' to restore the level of funding for plaintiffs' Medicaid Benefits prior to aging out of the "children's program," at the current prevailing rate paid by the defendants to persons who are developmentally disabled in a residential program and who have a need for access to 24-hour nursing care services and who have not attained the age of 21 years; -- award plaintiff and the class the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 USC Section 12205; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 USC Section 1988; and -- award such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate. The suit is "Keith Boney, et al. v. Barry S. Maram, et al., Case No. 08CV4026," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiff is: Robert H. Farley, Jr., Esq. Robert H. Farley, Jr., Ltd. 1155 S. Washington Street Naperville, IL 60540 Phone: 630-369-0103 INDYMAC BANK: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles H. Johnson & Associates said that a class action lawsuit has been commenced against IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (Pink Sheets:IDMC) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. 401(k) Plan between December 31, 2006, and the present, and whose accounts included investments in IndyMac common stock. The Complaint alleges that IndyMac and other administrators of the Plan may have breached their ERISA mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. A breach may have occurred if the fiduciaries failed to manage the assets of the Plan prudently and loyally by investing the assets in Company stock when it was no longer a prudent investment for participants' retirement savings. Specifically, IndyMac continued to make and maintain investments in IndyMac stock despite the Company's apparent mismanagement of the risk of assets held by the Company and its gross failure to maintain adequate capital and liquidity. The suit is "Teresa D. Moore v. Indymac Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case Number: 2:2008cv04579," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. For more information, contact: Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com) Charles H. Johnson & Associates 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112 Phone: 651-633-5685 JACK DISTRIBUTION: Undeclared Content Prompts Rize 2 Caps Recall ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Distribution, LLC, 1501 Green Road Unit C Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 and its wholesale distributors G & N works, Inc., and Devine Distribution, Inc., are conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of these lot numbers of the company's supplement products sold under the brand names Rize 2 The Occasion and Rose 4 Her: -- Rize 2 lot number CG-84 expires 11/10, -- Rize 2 lot number GD-98 expires 08/10, -- Rize 2 lot number CC-06 expires 06/10, -- Rize 2 lot number 709 expires 09/10, -- Rize 2 lot number CG-79 expires 11/10, and -- Rose 4 Her lot number CG-78 expires 11/10. Jack Distribution, LLC, is conducting this recall after being informed by representatives of the Food and Drug Administration that lab analysis by FDA of Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her samples from lots manufactured and packaged in 2007 found the product contains potentially harmful, undeclared ingredients. FDA asserts that its chemical analysis revealed that these lots of Rize 2 The Occasion and Rose 4 Her contain thiomethisosildenafil, an analog of sildenafil, the active ingredient of a FDA-approved drug used for Erectile Dysfunction. FDA maintains that this ingredient is close in structure to sildenafil and is expected to possess a similar pharmacological and adverse event profile. This undeclared chemical poses a potential threat to consumers because it may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels. Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates. ED is a common problem in men with these conditions, and consumers may seek these types of products to enhance sexual performance. Customers who have this product in their possession should stop using it immediately and contact their physician if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking this product. Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this product should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program through this contact information: MedWatch HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20852-9787 Phone: 1-800-FDA-1088 Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178 The company advises that any unused portions from these lot numbers be returned to the place of purchase for a full refund of purchase price. G & N Works and Devine Distribution are not shipping any Rize 2 or Rose 4 Her that is in stock while additional samples are being tested, they expect to begin shipping again in 2-4 weeks. Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her are sold in adult stores, vitamin & nutrition shops, convenience stores, and via the internet nationwide. The Rize 2 product is sold as a (single blister pack, three count bottles, twelve count bottles, and thirty count bottles. Rose 4 Her is only available in single blister packs and three count bottles. The Company is taking this voluntary action because it is committed and is always concerned with the health of persons who have consumed this product. The Company is reviewing the procedures and policies of all firms involved with the manufacture of the product to ensure that there will be no future issues with regard to Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her pills composition. The Company is working closely with the FDA in the recall process and is committed to the quality and integrity of its products. It says it sincerely regrets any inconvenience to consumers and its other customers. NEXCEN BRANDS: July 28 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP disclosed that July 28, 2008, is the deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff appointment in the pending class action lawsuits against NexCen Brands, Inc., and other defendants. On May 28, 2008, Dyer & Berens LLP filed "Gray v. NexCen Brands, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04906-MGC," in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of NexCen between May 10, 2007, and May 19, 2008. The complaint charges NexCen and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thereafter, other law firms filed similar complaints on behalf of purchasers of NexCen common stock and call options. The suit is "Gray v. NexCen Brands, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08- cv-04906-MGC," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. For more information, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. Dyer & Berens LLP 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 888-300-3362 NOKIA CORP: Faces California Lawsuit Over Sale of Used Phone ------------------------------------------------------------ Nokia Corp., AT&T Mobility, and CommClub are facing a purported class action lawsuit over an incident in California involving a used cellphone that was being sold as brand new, Jeffrey Silva writes for RCRNews.com. According to the report, the suit was originally filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, only to be removed on July 9, 2008, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit was filed by attorneys at the law offices of Gregg Farley and Michels & Watkins in Los Angeles on behalf of Kevin A. Munroe and Lorelei L. Munroe. According to the 27-page complaint obtained by RCRNews.com, "The class has suffered injuries in fact and lost money or property as a result of the acts in that members of the class paid the purchase price for a brand new Nokia cellphone and instead received a used or reconditioned Nokia cellphone that was worth substantially less." The suit is "Kevin A. Munroe, et al. v. Nokia, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-04503-ODW-RZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Otis D. Wright, II, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Shirley K. Watkins, Esq. (swatkins@michelswatkins.com) Law Offices of Michels and Watkins 11755 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-444-1200 Fax: 310-445-4109 - and - Gregg A. Farley, Esq. (gfarley@farleyfirm.com) Law Offices of Gregg A. Farley 11755 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-445-4024 Fax: 310-445-4109 Representing the defendants is: Lisa W. Cornehl, Esq. (lcornehl@mayerbrown.com) Mayer Brown LLP 350 South Grand Avenue 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Phone: 213-229-9500 Fax: 213-625-0248 O'HARE AIRPORT EMPLOYERS: Sued for Cheating on Immigrants' Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ten Mexican workers on July 17, 2008, filed a class-action lawsuit targeting nine employers around O'Hare International Airport, claiming that the companies cheated immigrants out of thousands of hours of wages, the Chicago Public Radio reports. The report relates that the case emerged after federal authorities arrested dozens of airport workers in November 2007. The raids led to felony charges over fake airport security badges, and put many of the workers into deportation proceedings. The plaintiffs say United Airlines and the other companies brought them to O'Hare through a temporary agency. Telephone numbers for the temporary agency, the Bensenville- based Ideal Staffing Solutions, Inc., have been disconnected, Chicago Public Radio notes. Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for United Airlines told Chicago Public Radio that the airline is not responsible because the immigrants came to its cargo facilities through a contractor. The workers' attorneys argue that United does share blame. PARMALAT: Court Notifies Investors of $40MM Partial Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- A multi-national notification program has begun, as ordered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to alert investors, brokers, financial institutions, and other nominees who bought the common stock or bonds of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. and its subsidiaries and affiliates from January 5, 1999, through and including December 18, 2003, about a partial settlement of a class action lawsuit. Shareholders initially filed the suit in 2004, and later refiled the complaint after Parmalat emerged from bankruptcy protection in 2006. The plaintiffs received permission in June 2006 to file a class action complaint against the company's executives, underwriters and auditors following Parmalat's emergence from bankruptcy protection, and filed it the following month. In 2007, Judge Kaplan preliminarily certified all persons and entities who purchased Parmalat securities through and including Jan. 5, 1999, to Dec. 18, 2003 -- the Settlement Class -- for settlement purposes under Civil Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) in the Action (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2007). Judge Kaplan appointed Hilsoft Notifications and Poorman Douglas Corp. as notice and claims administrators to supervise and administer the notice procedure and processing of claims. In May, Parmalat announced the $40 million settlement. The company said in a statement that as part of the settlement with investors who filed the class action case, it will issue 10.5 million shares of stock, worth about $36 million. The company said it would also pay up to $1.55 million to notify class members that a settlement had been reached. The partial settlement resolves the case against Parmalat S.p.A. and will result in Parmalat providing 10,500,000 shares of stock in the Parmalat company that has emerged from reorganization proceedings in Italy. That stock will then either be sold, and money paid to class members, or the stock will be distributed among themselves. In an order handed down on July 2, 2008, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a settlement class composed of shareholders who purchased Parmalat stock between Jan. 5, 1999, and Dec. 18, 2003. Judge Kaplan stipulated that the settlement class excludes Parmalat; all defendants named in the case; any officers and directors of Parmalat or its subsidiaries; and banks and insurance companies employed by Parmalat. The judge also scheduled a settlement hearing for Sept. 24, 2008, when he will determine whether the proposed settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the class. Deadline to file for exclusions from and objections to the settlement is on Sept. 15, 2008. Deadline to file claim forms is on Jan. 12, 2009. Headquartered in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A. -- http://www.parmalat.net/-- sells nameplate milk products that can be stored at room temperature for months. It also has about 40 brand product lines, which include yogurt, cheese, butter, cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and vegetable sauces, soups and juices. The company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139). Gary Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, represent the Debtors. When the U.S. Debtors filed for bankruptcy protection, they reported more than US$200 million in assets and debts. The U.S. Debtors emerged from bankruptcy on April 13, 2005. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Faces Wash. Suit Over Underpaid Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Progressive Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint before the Superior Court of Washington for King County over allegations that it cheats policyholders by underpaying for personal injury claims through a database that purports to summarize health-care provider charges within a geographical area, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Civil Rule 23 of the Civil Court Rules for the State of Washington on behalf of all persons who sustained injuries in car crashes (e.g. car v. car, car v. pedestrian, car v. bicycle, etc) who were Progressive insureds or claimants entitled to pursue PIP benefits and who timely filed with Progressive an application for PIP benefits and Progressive did not pay the full amount of the health care bills submitted to it for payment in reliance on an Explanation Code 41 and Explanation Code 340 and a data base or survey. The plaintiffs seek: -- a judgment in their favor; -- an award of actual damages to be established at trial; -- an award of statutory damages; -- an award of reasonable attorney fees; -- exemplary damages provide for by the Consumer Protection Act; -- an award of consequential damages; -- an order certifying a class according to CR 23(b)(3); and -- an award of all other monetary and equitable relief as to the court seems just. The suit is "Tracey L. Carlson, et al. v. Progressive Insurance Co., Case No. 08-2-23495-9 SEA," filed in the Superior Court of Washington for King County. Representing the plaintiffs is: Brad J. Moore, Esq. Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Coluccio 200 Second Avenue West Seattle, WA 98119-4204 Phone: 206-448-1777 Fax: 206-728-2131 ROXANNE LABS: Recalls Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension ------------------------------------------------------------- Roxane Laboratories, Inc., is conducting a nationwide voluntary recall of two manufacturing lots of Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension, USP, 15 g/60 mL Unit dose bottles (NDC 0054-0165-51; Lot 856396A Exp April 2010, and Lot 856693A Exp May 2010). Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension is used to treat hyperkalemia, an elevated blood level of the electrolyte potassium. Roxane Laboratories' number one priority is for the safety of patients who use our products. A sample from product lot 856396A tested positive for a strain of yeast, which could potentially affect immunocompromised patients. Roxane Laboratories believes that this may be attributed to yeast contamination in one lot of high-density polyethylene bottles received from a supplier. There are various manifestations of yeast infections. The risk of developing a yeast infection depends on how immunocompromised the patient is. Additionally, there are a range of symptoms in a yeast infection from thrush, skin rash, and blood infections (sepsis). If patients develop an infection they should consult their physician. Due to the potential risks that could occur in immunocompromised patients, Roxane Laboratories is voluntarily recalling lot 856396A. Although there have been no testing failures associated with lot 856693A, this additional lot is also being included in the recall as a precautionary measure because the same lot of bottles was used in both finished product lots. All other product parameters were within specification and product efficacy is not impacted. There have been no complaints or adverse events reported for the affected lots. This recall is limited to the two lot numbers listed. No other Roxane Laboratories, Inc. products or lots are impacted by this recall. Information has been sent to Pharmacists alerting them of the details pertaining to this recall. As described in these recall communications, pharmacists who may have dispensed Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension, USP, 15 g/60 mL Unit dose bottles from Lots 856396A and 856693A are instructed to contact those patients to return the affected product to the pharmacist. Pharmacists and wholesalers that have any Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension, USP, 15 g/60 mL Unit dose bottles from Lot 856396A or Lot 856693A have been instructed to discontinue distribution and use of these lots immediately and contact Capital Returns at 888-839-7837 for any questions regarding the recall returns. Requests for additional information should be referred to Roxane Laboratories Technical Product Information at 800-962-8364. ROYAL DUTCH: Reaches $120M Settlement in N.J. Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Dutch Shell has reached a $120-million settlement deal in a securities fraud class action lawsuit that accuses the company and other defendants of overstating oil and natural gas reserves and artificially inflating stock prices over a five year period, from April 1999 to March 2004, The Gant Daily reports. In June 2008, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Esq., announced the $120-million settlement reached in the case, whose lead plaintiffs are the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement Board and the Public School Employees' Retirement Board. The lawsuit, styled, "Brockamp v. N.V. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00374-JAP-JJH," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Jan. 29, 2004. It was brought on behalf of all U.S. investors who suffered losses as the result of the alleged actions by Shell. The settlement covers all investors who purchased Shell shares on U.S. markets between April 1999 and March 2004, along with any American citizen or entity that purchased Shell shares on non-U.S. markets during that same period, according to The Gant Daily. A.G. Corbett told Gant Daily that the final distribution of funds will be determined by the total number of investors who submit claims. It is expected that the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement Fund and the Public School Employees' Retirement Fund will recover approximately $6.5 million as the result of this settlement. The money will be returned directly to the retirement funds. The suit is "Brockamp v. N.V. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00374-JAP-JJH," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Joel A. Pisano, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert J. Berg, Esq. (berg@bernlieb.com) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: 201-592-3201 William C. Cagney, Esq. (wcagney@windelsmarx.com) Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP 120 Albany Street Plaza New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Phone: 732-846-7600 - and - Jan Meyer, Esq. (jmeyer@janmeyerlaw.com) Law Offices of Jan Meyer 1029 Teaneck Road, 2nd Floor Teaneck, NJ 07666 Phone: 201-862-9500 Representing the defendants are: Jeffrey Alan Cohen, Esq. (jcohen@rfbclaw.com) Robertson, Freilich, Bruno & Cohen, LLC One Riverfront Plaza, 4th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: 973-848-2100 STUDIO RTA: Recalls TV Stands Due to Tip-over Hazard ---------------------------------------------------- Studio RTA, of Pico Rivera, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 6,700 TV stands. The company said the stability of the stand does not meet industry standards to prevent TV tip-over, posing a risk of injury or death to consumers. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves "Silhouette" TV stands with black or brushed silver and black frames and three glass shelves. Models included in the recall are 403650 (brushed silver and black) and 404191 (black). Model numbers are printed on the packaging and instruction sheet. These recalled TV stands were manufactured by King Pao Enterprise Co. Ltd., of Guangdong, China and were being sold by Shopko and Boscov's stores nationwide from September 2007 through June 2008 for about $140. Pictures of the recalled TV stands are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08331a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08331b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately remove the TV from stand and contact Studio RTA to receive a free repair kit. For additional information, contact Studio RTA at 888-309-0299 between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. Consumers can also visit the firm's Web site at http://www.studiorta.com/ TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit in Illinois Over False Advertising -------------------------------------------------------------- Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., are facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida over allegations they falsely advertise that their Prius hybrid gets 55 miles per gallon, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action brought by Derek B. Brett on behalf of all persons in Florida who purchased or leased a new Toyota Prius Hybrid distributed or marketed by defendant from Jan. 1, 2000, through the present. The plaintiff claims that Toyota's Advertising and marketing of the PRIUS includes representations of fuel economy that the car does not achieve under normal driving conditions. The class claims the car gets no more than 46 mpg (48 city and 45 highway). The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether Toyota knew, or by exercise of reasonable care should have known that the PRIUS actual fuel efficiency was significantly below the figures Toyota advertised; (b) whether Toyota advertised the PRIUS to the class with materially deceptive, untrue, or misleading statements of fuel efficiency expressed in miles per gallon or cost savings; (c) whether Toyota made materially untrue or misleading statements of fact to the class concerning the fuel efficiency of the PRIUS; (d) whether Toyota concealed from the class and failed to disclose or omitted to state to the class material facts concerning the actual fuel efficiency of the PRIUS; (e) whether Toyota knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the omissions of fact, non-disclosures of fact and materially misleading statements of fact made to the class about the fuel economy and fuel cost savings of the PRIUS had the capacity or tendency to confuse and mislead; (f) whether, by the misconduct as set forth in the complaint, Toyota engaged in unfair or unlawful business practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sale of the PRIUS; (g) whether, as a result of Toyota's misconduct as set forth in the complaint, plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages, restitution, equitable relief and other relief; (h) whether Toyota has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, making injunctive relief appropriate; and (i) whether a class can be certified in the alternative, the class can b certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2). The plaintiff asks the court for: -- an order certifying the class and appointing him and his counsel to represent the class; -- restitution and disgorgement of amounts paid by the plaintiff and members of the class for the purchase and lease of the PRIUS, together with interest from the date of payment; -- actual damages; -- statutorily provided damages; -- statutory prejudgment interest; -- reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of this action; -- legal, injunctive and equitable relief under the causes of action stated; including enjoining defendants from misrepresenting the fuel efficiency and requiring defendants to disclose the actual fuel efficiency of affected PRIUSES; and -- such other relief that the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Derek B. Brett, et al. v. Toyota Motor North America Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-CV-464-Ftm-34 DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Representing the plaintiff is: Scott Wm. Weinstein, Esq. (SWeinstein@ForThePeople.com) Morgan & Morgan PA One University Park 12800 University Drive, Suite 600 Fort Myers, FL 33907-5337 Phone: 239-433-6880 Fax: 239-433-6836 UNITED NATIONS: Court Hears Arguments in Suit Over 1995 Genocide ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Dutch court recently heard arguments from parties involved in a purported class action lawsuit against the United Nations Organization over its failure to prevent the 1995 massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, Bosnia, The Canadian Press reports. The suit was filed in the Dutch Supreme Court in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 4, 2007. It alleges that the defendants -- the U.N. and the Netherlands -- failed to protect Muslim civilians from the 1995 genocide, also known as the Srebrenica massacre. Many of the victims were refugees that relocated to the Srebrenica enclave declared to be a "safe area" by the U.N. Security Council in 1993 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2007). According to Canadian Press, the suit also accuses the Dutch government of failing to authorize air cover to prevent the massacre. Dutch lawyers for the group "Mothers of Srebrenica" filed the purported class action suit. The "Mothers of Srebrenica," which is composed of relatives of men and boys killed at the U.N.- declared safe zone, is the most vocal claimant in the civil suit, Canadian Press explains. Specifically, attorneys Axel Hagedorn, Marco Gerritsen, Faruli Capina, Semir Guzin, and Maunira Subasic filed the suit on behalf of 10 lead plaintiffs and the survivors and relatives of victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre (Class Action Reporter, June 7, 2007). The attorneys are seeking compensation from both the U.N. and the Dutch government for their failure to protect the Muslim civilians. According to Canadian Press, lawyers for the families earlier cited a figure of US$4 billion as a starting point for compensation negotiations. In a June 2008 hearing, Canadian Press relates, lawyers for the victims' families argued that the U.N. should be held liable for failing to stop the events that transpired in July 1995, which has been described as the worst massacre of civilians in Europe since the Second World War. The report notes that the Dutch government lawyers argued before the Hague District Court that the U.N. is immune from prosecution in national courts under the U.N. charter, endorsed by all its members. However, according to the lawyers for the families, there was nowhere else to turn for a fair hearing of grievances. Axel Hagedorn, whose firm claims to represent 6,000 family members of victims in the unusual class-action lawsuit, told the court that he believed the U.N.'s immunity is not applicable in a genocide case. He pointed out that "They may be responsible but unable to be called to account because of immunity. This is unacceptable legally, humanly and morally." Bert Jan Houtzagers, representing the Dutch state, told the three-judge tribunal that a ruling for the victims would have broad implications. Mr. Houtzagers told the tribunal, "It is not true that the United Nations believes it is over and above the law, but the question is whether a Dutch court is competent to hear a case against it. Because if a Dutch court does, any court in any country could do so and that would thwart the viability of the United Nations." Mr. Hagedorn though countered that if the Dutch court refused to hear the suit, it would leave the victims with no venue for their claims, in contravention of international treaties on genocide. Marco Gerritsen, another lawyer for the victims, said the U.N. and Netherlands "should not hide behind each other or each point the finger at the other" to avoid claims. The suit is one of several cases seeking to determine whether the Netherlands and the U.N. can be held liable for not being able to carry out a promise of protection for civilians in the U.N. enclave. The court said it will rule on the immunity issue within this month. Canadian Press points out that an independent report by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation in 2002 placed partial blame for the massacre with the Dutch government for sending its ill-prepared troops on an impossible mission. It also faulted the U.N. for designating the area a "safe haven" for Bosnian war refugees, but not defining what that meant. The NIWD report led the Dutch government to resign, but the state denied liability for the murders, saying that rested with the Serb forces. According to Canadian Press, the U.N. war crimes tribunal set up to prosecute war crimes committed during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia is still seeking the two prime criminal suspects in the Srebrenica massacre: Gen. Ratko Mladic, who commanded Serb forces in Bosnia, and Radovan Karadzic, the top political leader of Bosnian Serbs. * Survey Says Securities Fraud Suits v. Life Science Cos. Up 56% ---------------------------------------------------------------- A survey by the international law firm of Dechert LLP has revealed that securities fraud class action lawsuits against life sciences companies climbed 56% last year to 25 lawsuits filed, compared with 16 cases filed in 2006, Sheri Qualters writes for The National Law Journal. The June 2008 Dechert "Survey of Securities Fraud Class Actions Brought Against Life Sciences Companies" also noted that the largest and smallest companies are the most likely to be sued, with large companies increasingly likely to face such lawsuits. In prior surveys, Dechert observed that nearly half of the cases were against small public companies with a market capitalization of less than $250 million, National Law Journal notes. The report explains that market capitalization is a measure of a public company's value determined by multiplying the stock price by the number of outstanding shares. National Law Journal also cites the survey report as stating that in 2007, eight companies with a market capitalization of more than $10 billion were sued, compared with 11 small companies with market capitalization of less than $250 million. Larger public companies tend to be targets of securities class actions in a variety of industries so the trend is not surprising, according to Princeton, N.J.-based attorney David Kotler, Esq., who is also a partner in Dechert's white collar and securities litigation group. National Law Journal further relates that smaller companies with a market capitalization of less than $250 million face securities lawsuits because they're less likely to have in-house legal staff or strict policies about public statements or stock sales and purchase by insiders. Mr. Kotler said that the smaller companies "are not as attuned to the potential implications for securities fraud lawsuits inherent in a product development process." He also said research employees of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, such as chief medical officers, are more likely to be named as defendants in such cases than employees of other companies who are not corporate officers or directors. New Securities Fraud Cases HUNTSMAN CORP: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., has commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Huntsman Corporation common stock between May 14, 2008, and June 18, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Craig Morrison and Joshua Harris. The complaint alleges that on July 12, 2007, Hexion announced an agreement to acquire all Huntsman common stock in a merger transaction for $28/share. The transaction was to close during the second quarter 2008 pending receipt of regulatory approvals and satisfaction of other closing conditions. Huntsman shareholders approved the transaction on October 16, 2007. On May 14, 2008, Hexion disclosed that it agreed to allow additional time to obtain the regulatory approvals. Unbeknownst to the public, defendants had determined to abort the merger and took steps to abrogate the Merger Agreement. Defendants retained the services of Duff & Phelps to render an opinion that the combined entity lacked financial viability. On June 18, 2008, Duff sent a letter to the Board of Directors of Hexion opining that the combined company's assets would not exceed its liabilities, that it would not have the ability to pay its total debts and liabilities as they become due and that it would have an unreasonably small amount of capital. On that same date, defendants filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, seeking abrogation of the Merger Agreement. The reaction in the marketplace was devastating to the price of Huntsman's common stock. On June 19, 2008, the first day of trading after the June 18, 2008 actions by Hexion, the market price of Huntsman common stock fell approximately $8, or 40%, from $20.86 to close at $12.84, on enormous volume of approximately 43 million shares. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock of Huntsman between May 14, 2008, and June 18, 2008. For more information, contact: Susan R. Gross, Esq. (susang@bernardmgross.com) Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com) Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 866-561-3600 215-561-3600 Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com/ ********* 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 * * *