/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080722.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 144
Headlines
ACCREDO HEALTH: Pendency of Class Action Summary Notice Issued
ACTAVIS TOTOWA: Ala. Suit Claims Production of Defective Digitek
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces "Marcoux" Lawsuit in New York
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Transportation Surcharges Suit
AMERICAN AIR: Plaintiffs in "McKay" Dismiss Claims v. Airline
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Prices & Surcharges
CARIBOU COFFEE: Sued for Forcing Workers to Pool and Share Tips
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Mich. Air Contamination Suit
CSX CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharges
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Former Server's Lawsuit for $700,000
DIRECTV INC: Court Okays Settlement in DVD Marketing Offer Suit
FEDEX CORP: Faces Freight Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suit in Ga.
FEDEX CORP: California Drivers' Lawsuit Remanded to Trial Court
FEDEX GROUND: Ninth Circuit Denies Review Request in "Wiegele"
FEDEX GROUND: Reaches Settlement in Two Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits
FEDEX GROUND: Faces Owner-Operators' Multidistrict Litigation
FEDEX GROUND: Oct. 2008 Trial Set for "Anfinson" Suit in Wash.
FEDEX GROUND: Faces Independent Contractor Drivers' Lawsuit
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: California Suit Claims False Advertising
FLORIDA: Homeowner Sues Developers for Building on Bombing Range
FUZE BEVERAGE: Faces Lawsuit in California Over False Claims
HANAROTELECOM: 10,000 Former Customers Sign Up for Class Suit
HUNTSMAN CORP: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is Sept. 15
LEAPFROG INC: Settles California Securities Lawsuit for $2.3MM
LEXISNEXIS: Ga. Illegal Electronic Filing System Suit Amended
NEWBRIDGE COLLEGE: Ex-Enrollees Sue Over Medical Job Promises
NOKIA CORP: Settles Workers' Lawsuit at Field Support Centers
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Last $1.6MM for Garment Workers Distributed
RIDLEY INC: Sup. Ct. Won't Allow Appeal for BSE Suit Dismissal
T-MOBILE USA: Loses Important Battle in Text Messaging Case
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
TRILEGIANT CORP: $25MM Deal in "Pederson" Granted Final Approval
TYSON FOODS: Idaho Residents Sue Over Antibiotics in Chicken
New Securities Fraud Cases
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in Georgia
FCSTONE GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.
FCSTONE GROUP: Howard Smith Files Missouri Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ACCREDO HEALTH: Pendency of Class Action Summary Notice Issued
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced, pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, the
pendency of an action as a class action lawsuit filed on behalf
of all persons and entities who acquired Accredo Health, Inc.
securities on the open market between June 16, 2002 and April 7,
2003.
The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between June 16, 2002, and
April 7, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Accredo common stock.
The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:
(a) that the Company was failing to timely record an
impairment in the value of certain receivables that it
had acquired in a recent acquisition. As a result, the
Company's reported financial results were artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period;
(b) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements published during the Class Period were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles and were therefore materially
false and misleading;
(c) that the Company would not have been able to meet its
stated earnings guidance had it properly reserved for
its accounts receivables; and
(d) based on (a)-(c), defendants' earnings guidance and
positive statements concerning the Company was lacking
in a reasonable and therefore materially false and
misleading.
On April 8, 2002, prior to the opening of the market, Accredo
shocked the market by announcing that it was reducing its
previously issued earning guidance and that it was examining the
adequacy of reserves for accounts receivables that it acquired
in a recent acquisition.
In response to this announcement, the price of Accredo Health
common stock declined precipitously falling from $25.40 per
share to as low as $13.76 per share, on extremely heavy volume.
During the Class Period, Accredo insiders sold more than $12
million worth of their personally-held Accredo stock while in
possession of the true facts about the Company.
On June 9, 2003, motions were made for appointment of lead
plaintiff and counsel. On June 19, 2003, the Court consolidated
the various actions and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel.
On July 2, 2003, the Court vacated the June 19 order
consolidating the cases and appointing lead plaintiff and
counsel. The cases remained consolidated. In an order dated
June 23, 2004, the Court reappointed lead plaintiff and counsel.
On September 15, 2004, a consolidated complaint was filed, and
defendants later filed a motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2005,
the judge denied the motion to dismiss. On May 16, 2005,
Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated complaint. On
July 22, 2005, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.
On March 7, 2006, a Report and Recommendations was filed
recommending that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
be granted.
On April 19, 2006, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S.
District Judge Bernice B. Donald adopting the Report and
Recommendations.
Recently, class members are notified, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, of the
pendency of the action as a class action.
The deadline to file for exclusion from the case is on Sept. 2,
2008.
The suit is "In Re: Accredo Health, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-02216," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Hon. Bernice B. Donald,
presiding.
The lead counsel are:
Timothy A. DeLange, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: 800-793-0070
Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/
- and -
Tor Gronborg, Esq.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/
ACTAVIS TOTOWA: Ala. Suit Claims Production of Defective Digitek
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed on July 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama charges pharmaceutical company
Actavis Totowa with manufacturing and distributing defective
Digitek heart drug pills that contained dangerously excessive
doses of the drug's active ingredient, digoxin, causing life-
threatening adverse drug reactions.
Digitek is typically prescribed to treat irregular heartbeat or
heart failure.
The suit, filed in the wake of an FDA Digitek recall, alleges
defective Digitek contained amounts of digoxin exceeding the
dose set forth on the label and in some cases exceeding the dose
approved for medical treatment in humans.
The litigation, brought by a Talladega woman and her husband,
alleges defective Digitek pills caused her to suffer digitalis
toxicity, a sometimes lethal reaction to an overdose of digoxin.
The suit claims the victim's adverse reaction included a drop in
heart rate into the low 30's, blindness, confusion and
incoherent speech. The suit claims the woman was hospitalized
for more than one month and underwent surgery to implant an
artificial heart pacemaker to treat permanent heart damage
believed to be caused by Digitek overdose.
The victim's injury occurred only a few weeks prior to April 25,
2008, when the FDA announced a nationwide recall of all Digitek
tablets because of the potential that the tablets were double
the appropriate thickness and contained up to twice the approved
level of the active ingredient. The suit claims the victim was
prescribed Digitek and unwittingly ingested defective tablets
that contained harmfully high levels of the active ingredient.
The suit blames Actavis for failing to heed FDA warnings in July
and August of 2006 and February of 2007, that many of the drug
products that were produced, manufactured and released to the
public by Actavis were adulterated and as a result the drugs
were not "the identity, strength, quality and purity they
purport to possess."
"What makes this so tragic is the Digitek debacle could have
been prevented had Actavis taken appropriate measures in
response to the FDA warnings," said Ryan Lutz, Esq.,
pharmaceutical litigation attorney with the law firm Cory Watson
Crowder & DeGaris of Birmingham, Alabama.
Mr. Lutz and Rick DiGiorgio, Esq., of Cory Watson, are
representing the victim.
The suit charges the drug maker knew or should have known about
the manufacturing and production defects and that the recalled
Digitek was adulterated, misbranded, defective, unreasonably
dangerous and unfit for its intended uses. "Despite the
undeniable knowledge, Actavis placed tens of thousands of
patients, including our client, unnecessarily at risk of
catastrophic injury and death," said Mr. Lutz.
The suit is "Dyal, et al. v. Actavis Group et al., Case Number:
2:2008cv01271," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Magistrate-Judge Robert R.
Armstrong, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Ryan Lutz, Esq.
Rick DiGiorgio, Esq.
Cory, Watson, Crowder & DeGaris, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Ave.
Birmingham, AL 35205-2808
Phone: 205-328-2200
800-852-6299 (Toll Free)
Fax: 205-324-7896
Web site: http://www.cwcd.com/
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces "Marcoux" Lawsuit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Inc. continues to face a purported class
action lawsuit entitled "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," which was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The suit, filed by Ann M. Marcoux, names as defendant:
-- the Association of Professional Flight Attendants;
-- the Union that represents the company's flight
attendants; and
-- American Airlines, Inc.
The suit asks on behalf of all of the company's flight
attendants or various subclasses damages allegedly resulting
from the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to
as the Restructuring Participation Agreement.
The RPA was one of three labor agreements that the company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.
The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against the Association
of Professional Flight Attendants and American Airlines relating
to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA by individual
APFA members, including:
-- violation of the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act and the APFA's Constitution and By-laws;
and
-- violation by the APFA of its duty of fair
representation to its members, violation by American of
provisions of the Railway Labor Act through
improper coercion of flight attendants into voting or
changing their vote for ratification, and violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
of 1970.
On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against American Airlines, all but one of the
LMRDA claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of
RICO.
This left the claimed violations of the RLA and the duty of fair
representation against American and the APFA (as well as one
LMRDA claim and one claim against the APFA of a breach of its
constitution).
By letter dated Feb. 9, 2007, the plaintiffs' counsel informed
the counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs do not intend
to pursue the LMRDA claim against APFA further.
American Airlines reported no development in the matter in its
July 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Nina Gershon,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Emily Maruja Bass, Esq. (eb@basslaw.us)
Law Offices of Emily Bass
25 Washington Street, Suite 305
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: 718-522-9705
Fax: 718-522-9707
- and -
Martin Garbus, Esq. (mgarbus@dglaw.com)
Mark J. Rachman, Esq. (mrachman@dglaw.com)
Davis & Gilbert, LLP
1740 Broadway, 21st floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-468-4800
Fax: 212-468-4888
Representing the defendants are:
Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr., Esq.
(treinert@morganlewis.com)
Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq.
(mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com)
Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq. (sshaulson@morganlewis.com)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Phone: 212-309-6000
Fax: 212-309-6273
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Transportation Surcharges Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., continues to face a consolidated class
action lawsuit entitled "In re International Air Transportation
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:06-cv-01793-CRB."
Initially, around 52 purported class action suits have been
filed in the U.S. against the company and certain foreign and
domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges for passenger transportation.
These cases, along with other purported class action suits in
which the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
M 06-01793" on Oct. 25, 2006.
The plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.
On July 9, 2007, the company was named as a defendant in the
consolidated complaint.
American Airlines reported no development in the matter in its
July 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In re International Air Transportation Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:06-cv-01793-CRB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Lee Albert, Esq. (lalbert@magergoldstein.com)
Mager & Goldstein, LLP
One Liberty Place, 21st Fl., 1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-640-3280
Fax: 215-640-3281
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq.
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, 2280 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: 415-563-7200
Fax: 415-346-0679
e-mail: malioto@tatp.com
- and -
Steven A. Asher, Esq.
Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-545-7200
Fax: 215-545-6535
Representing the defendants is:
Debra J. Pearlstein, Esq. (debra.pearlstein@weil.com)
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Phone: 212-310-8686
Fax: 213-310-8007
AMERICAN AIR: Plaintiffs in "McKay" Dismiss Claims v. Airline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported Canadian class action lawsuit
"McKay v. Ace Aviation Holdings, et al.," agreed to dismiss
their claims against American Airlines, Inc., according to the
company's July 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
On Jan. 23, 2007, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint filed against it, AMR Corp., and certain
foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia in Canada.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated Canadian
competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments. The complaint sought
compensatory and punitive damages under Canadian law.
On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims
against the company. The dismissal is without prejudice and
the company could be brought back into the litigation at a
future date.
American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml/-- is
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp. All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR. American is a scheduled passenger
airline. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 170 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia. In addition, American has capacity purchase
agreements with two wholly owned subsidiaries of AMR, American
Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. and two
independently owned regional airlines, which do business as the
American Connection (the American Connection carriers). The AMR
Eagle and American Connection carriers provide connecting
service from eight of American's high-traffic cities to smaller
markets throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.
American is also a scheduled air freight carriers, providing a
range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Prices & Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., continues to face two purported class
action lawsuits over allegations that the company violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges for passenger transportation in Japan and Germany,
respectively.
The suits were filed on March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008,
under the captions:
-- "Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444
(N.D. Cal.);" and
-- "LaFlamme v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-
1079 (E.D.N.Y.)."
The plaintiffs in the Turner and LaFlamme cases are seeking
trebled money damages and injunctive relief.
American Airlines reported no development in the matters in its
July 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml-- is
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp. All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR. American is a scheduled passenger
airline. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 170 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia. In addition, American has capacity purchase
agreements with two wholly owned subsidiaries of AMR, American
Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. and two
independently owned regional airlines, which do business as the
American Connection (the American Connection carriers). The AMR
Eagle and American Connection carriers provide connecting
service from eight of American's high-traffic cities to smaller
markets throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.
American is also a scheduled air freight carriers, providing a
range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.
CARIBOU COFFEE: Sued for Forcing Workers to Pool and Share Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caribou Coffee in Beltrami County is facing a class action
lawsuit for allegedly forcing workers to pool tips and giving
managers a cut, Emma L. Carew writes for Star Tribune.
According to the suit, the locally based specialty coffee giant
violated state labor laws with its policy of employees combining
tips and sharing them with managers.
Troy Poetz, Esq., of Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., in St. Cloud,
filed the Caribou lawsuit on behalf of one former employee,
Lindsey Savage. Mr. Poetz is trying to get the suit certified
as a class action, the report says.
Ms. Savage, who declined to give a comment to Star Tribune,
worked for two Caribou locations in 2005 and 2006, one in
Bemidji and one in Minneapolis. Mr. Poetz estimated the Caribou
team members make about $1.70 per hour in tips -- a significant
addition to their hourly wage of $7 or $8.
The complaint states that Caribou employees were required to
combine their tips at the end of each shift. It points out that
shift supervisors and store managers who took shares from the
tips were in direct violation of state law.
"It all comes down to the fact that it's that employee's money,"
Mr. Poetz said in an interview with Star Tribune. "Minnesota
law has a specific provision which is to protect that employee."
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Mich. Air Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Environmental Solution is facing a class-action
complaint before the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne,
State of Michigan over claims that it contaminates the air with
noxious odors, CourtHouse News Service reports.
According to the suit, it is necessary to protect the rights of
the plaintiffs, which have been unseasonable interfered with
resulting from the physical invasion of the plaintiffs' person
and property by noxious odors and air contaminants, thereby
causing material injury to the plaintiffs' person and property
through negligence, gross negligence and nuisance.
The noxious odors and contaminants which have invaded the
plaintiffs' person and property originated from the defendant's
facility in Dearborn, Wayne County. According to the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, the defendant operates a
non-hazardous liquid industrial waste and used oil processing
facility.
The odor emitted by the defendant's facility has been described
by residents of the surrounding neighborhood as strong, nauseous
and foul that they can small both inside and outside their
homes, the report notes.
The plaintiffs request that the court declare defendant liable
to the plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $25,000 and award
them all costs and attorney fees which resulted from the
initiation of this litigation, as well as award them such other
relief as is just under the circumstances.
The suit is "Helen Buczynski, et al. v. Comprehensive
Environmental Solutions Inc., Case No. 08-11787 NZ," filed in
the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
Macuga, Liddle & Dubin PC
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Phone: 313-392-0015
CSX CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. and other major U.S. railroads are facing a
consolidated class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia over allegations that the
individual railroads violated the U.S. antitrust laws.
Since May 2007, at least 30 putative class action suits have
been brought in various federal district courts against CSX and
four other U.S.-based Class I railroads.
The lawsuits contain substantially similar allegations to the
effect that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to
contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal
conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. The suits seek
unquantified treble damages allegedly sustained by purported
class members, attorneys' fees and other relief.
All but three of the lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a
class of shippers that allegedly purchased rail freight
transportation services from the defendants through the use of
contracts or through other means exempt from rate regulation
during defined periods commencing as early as June 2003 and were
assessed fuel surcharges.
Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of indirect
purchasers of rail services. One additional lawsuit has been
filed by an individual shipper.
The class action suits have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, according to the
company's July 16, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 27, 2008.
CSX Corp. -- http://www.csx.com/-- is a transportation company.
The Company owns companies providing rail, intermodal and rail-
to-truck transload services, connecting more than 70 ocean,
river and lake ports. CSX operates in two segments: rail and
intermodal.
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Former Server's Lawsuit for $700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., paid $700,000 to settle a purported
class action lawsuit filed by a former Olive Garden server in a
California state court, the Orlando Sentinel reports.
The lawsuit was filed in August 2007 in a California state court
over allegations that Olive Garden's scheduling practices
resulted in failure to properly pay reporting time (minimum
shift) pay as well as to pay minimum wage, to provide itemized
wage statements, and to timely pay employees upon the
termination of their employment.
The complaint sought to have the suit certified as a class
action. However, no class had been certified.
The company has removed the case to federal court, and filed
motions to dismiss the case (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22,
2008).
Although the company believes that its policies and practices
were lawful and that it had strong defenses, following mediation
with the plaintiffs, it reached a preliminary settlement of this
matter during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 under which the
company agreed to pay $700,000, according to the company's
July 17, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The company anticipates that the preliminary settlement amount
will be paid out during fiscal 2009 at the completion of the
settlement process.
Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a
casual dining restaurant company. The Company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.
DIRECTV INC: Court Okays Settlement in DVD Marketing Offer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial Circuit in St. Clair
County granted final approval of a class action settlement in
the case of "Kolker v. DirectTV, Cause No. 07-L-240," over a
portable DVD marketing offer.
As an incentive for signing a long-term commitment, DirectTV
offered a portable DVD player. The class action case was
brought by customers who signed the commitment and returned a
valid redemption form, but never received the player.
Under this settlement, DirectTV subscribers who submitted
redemption forms will receive a free portable DVD player
(approximate retail value of $129) with no fewer features than
the ones advertised by DirectTV.
For those class members who received the traditional stationary
DVD player instead of the portable player that was promised,
they will keep the stationary player (approximate retail value
of $29) and get the portable one.
For those class members who did not even receive the traditional
stationary DVD player, they will also receive a traditional
stationary DVD in addition to the portable DVD player.
In other words, class members will have received both:
(1) the portable DVD player, and
(2) a traditional stationary DVD player.
DirectTV also paid for claims notice, claims administrative
costs, attorneys' fees and legal costs.
"The Lakin Law Firm is committed to representing and protecting
consumers," said Bradley Lakin, Esq., of The Lakin Law Firm.
"Few people have the time, energy, or resources to pursue a
small claim against a major corporation. Fortunately, we were
able to get class members more than what they were promised in
the first place."
Deadline to file claims is on September 6, 2008.
To contact the Lakin Law Firm:
Lakin Law Firm PC
300 Evans Avenue, PO Box 229
Wood River, IL 62095-0229
Phone: 618-254-1127
800-851-5523
Fax: 618-254-0193
Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/
FEDEX CORP: Faces Freight Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corp. and its subsidiaries are facing a consolidated
antitrust lawsuit in Georgia over freight fuel surcharges,
according to the company's July 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2008.
In July 2007, a purported antitrust class-action lawsuit was
filed in California federal court, naming FedEx Corp.
(particularly FedEx Freight Corp. and its LTL freight
subsidiaries) and several other major LTL freight carriers as
defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants conspired
to fix fuel surcharge rates in violation of federal antitrust
laws and seeks injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys'
fees.
Since the filing of the original case, numerous similar cases
have been filed against the company and other LTL freight
carriers, each with allegations of conspiracy to fix fuel
surcharge rates along with other related allegations.
According to the company's regulatory filing, the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these cases
for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single
federal court -- the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.
FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.
FEDEX CORP: California Drivers' Lawsuit Remanded to Trial Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against FedEx Corp. -- which determined
that independent contractors in its subsidiary, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., are direct employees -- was recently
remanded to a trial court, after an appeal in the matter was
denied by the California Supreme Court.
The case, "Estrada vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.," is a
class action suit involving single work area contractors in
California.
In Aug. 13, 2007, the California appellate court affirmed the
trial court's ruling in "Estrada" that a limited number of
California single work area contractors (most of whom have not
contracted with FedEx Ground since 2001) should be reimbursed as
employees for some of their operating expenses.
The Supreme Court of California has affirmed the appellate
court's liability and class certification decisions.
The case has been remanded to the trial court for
reconsideration of the amount of such reimbursable expenses and
attorneys' fees.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008.
FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.
FEDEX GROUND: Ninth Circuit Denies Review Request in "Wiegele"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied a
request by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. -- a major service
line of FedEx Corp. -- that sought a review of a lower court's
certification of a class in the matter, "Wiegele v. Fedex
Ground, et al, Case No. 3:06-cv-01330-JLS-POR."
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on June 26, 2006. It alleges that FedEx
Ground has misclassified the managers as exempt from the
overtime requirements of California wage-and-hour laws and is
correspondingly liable for failing to pay them overtime
compensation and for failing to provide them with rest and meal
breaks.
The plaintiffs represent a class of FedEx Ground sort managers
and dock service managers in California from May 10, 2002, to
present.
In February 2008, the case was certified as a class action by a
California federal court, which ruling the company sought a
review of.
In April 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
denied the company's petition to review the class certification
ruling, according to the company's July 16, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2008.
The suit is "Wiegele v. Fedex Ground, et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
01330-JLS-POR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Janis L. Sammartino,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
James Jason Hill, Esq. (jhill@ck-lawfirm.com)
Cohelan & Khoury
605 C. Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-595-3001
Fax: 619-595-3000
Representing the defendants is:
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
(barbara.miller@morganlewis.com)
Morgan Lewis and Bockius
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: 949-390-3000
Fax: 949-390-3001
FEDEX GROUND: Reaches Settlement in Two Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a major service line of FedEx
Corp., has agreed to settle two wage-and-hour lawsuits and
executed a settlement agreement, which awaits court approval.
The lawsuits contain various class-action allegations of wage-
and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege,
among other things, that they were forced to work "off the
clock," were not paid overtime, or were not provided work breaks
or other benefits.
The complaints generally sought unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief, or both.
The company subsequently agreed to settle the lawsuits for an
"immaterial" amount, according to the company's July 16, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008.
FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.
FEDEX GROUND: Faces Owner-Operators' Multidistrict Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a major service line of FedEx
Corp., is involved in approximately 45 class-action lawsuits
(including 21 that have been certified as class actions) that
claim that the company's owner-operators should be treated as
employees, rather than as independent contractors.
Most of the class-action lawsuits have been consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.
With the exception of recently filed cases that have been or
will be transferred to the multidistrict litigation, discovery
and class certification briefing are now complete.
In October 2007, the company received a decision from the court
granting class certification in a Kansas action alleging state
law claims on behalf of a statewide class and federal law claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on
behalf of a nationwide class.
In January 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit declined the company's request for appellate review of
the class certification decision.
In March 2008, the court granted class certification in 19
additional cases and denied it in nine cases.
The court has not yet ruled on class certification issues in the
other cases that are pending in the multidistrict litigation.
Motions for summary judgment on the classification issue (i.e.,
independent contractor vs. employee) are pending in all 20 of
the cases that have been certified as class actions, according
to the company's July 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2008.
FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.
FEDEX GROUND: Oct. 2008 Trial Set for "Anfinson" Suit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An October 2008 trial is scheduled for the purported class
action lawsuit "Anfinson v. FedEx Ground," which was filed in a
Washington state court against FedEx Ground Package System,
Inc., a major service line of FedEx Corp.
In general, the lawsuit claims that the company's owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than
independent contractors.
The plaintiffs in "Anfinson" represent a class of FedEx Ground
single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Washington
from Dec. 21, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2005, and allege that the
class members should be reimbursed as employees for their
uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay.
In January 2008, the suit was certified as a class action. The
Anfinson case is scheduled for trial in October 2008, according
to the company's July 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2008.
FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.
FEDEX GROUND: Faces Independent Contractor Drivers' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a major service line of FedEx
Corp., is involved in three purported class action lawsuits
brought by drivers of the company's independent contractors who
claim that they were jointly employed by the contractor and
FedEx Ground, according to the company's July 16, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2008.
The company reported no further details and no further updates
regarding the matters in its regulatory filing.
FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through
companies that compete collectively, operate independently and
manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These
companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal
Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering
time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground,
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight
Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight
services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day
and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its
FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services),
and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides
sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as
customer service support through FedEx Customer Information
Services, Inc.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: California Suit Claims False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp., Countrywide
Bank FSB and Full Spectrum Lending Inc. are facing a class-
action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California over allegations that the companies
competed unfairly and falsely advertised home mortgage loans and
home equity credit lines, CourtHouse News Service reports.
As a result, the report notes, many consumers are now suffering
under the immense weight of unsuitable, over-priced mortgage
loans.
The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to provisions of Fed.
R. Civ. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and on behalf of all persons in the United States who,
at any time between July 17, 2004, and July 1, 2008, obtained at
least one residential mortgage loan from Countrywide and were
subject to any of the unlawful lending practices, including
unfair, misleading and deceptive solicitation practices,
excessive fees, unfair, abusive or undisclosed loan terms and
deceptive steering.
Such practices include any representations, misrepresentations,
omissions, disclosures or any other acts, events, facts,
transactions, occurrences, or conduct, whether oral, written or
otherwise, by Countrywide, including its employees or agents,
arising out of, or relating to any of the following:
(1) loan types and terms;
(2) interest rates;
(3) disclosures, including both oral and written
disclosures; prepayment penalties; and
(4) material changes in terms that have the effect of
increasing the payment obligations of the borrower.
The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:
(a) whether Countrywide has been or is engaged in a false,
misleading and deceptive marketing practices;
(b) whether Countrywide has steered borrowers toward
unsuitable, over-priced and risky loan products,
including pay option ARMs and hybrid ARMs;
(c) whether Countrywide has incentivized and/or encouraged
its employees and brokers to increase loan volume,
regardless of the borrowers' ability to pay;
(d) whether Countrywide's solicitations were unfair,
misleading, unconscionable, deceptive, untrue,
misleading or omitted material facts and disclosures;
(e) whether Countrywide has been or is engaged in unfair
and unlawful business practices, and whether the
alleged conduct violated the California Business and
Professions Code and the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; and
(f) whether the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
relief, and if so, the measure of such relief.
The plaintiffs ask the court for:
-- certification of this case as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
declaring them as representatives of the class, as
well as appointing their counsel as counsel for
the class;
-- that the court declare, adjudge and decree that
Countrywide has committed the violations of law alleged;
-- that Countrywide be enjoined from continuing the
illegal course of conduct alleged;
-- that the court award damages, as set forth, to them
and the class, in an amount to be determined at trial;
-- that the court order disgorgement of Countrywide's ill-
gotten gains and impose a constructive trust upon all
such ill-gotten gains and award the class full
restitution of all amounts wrongfully acquired by
Countrywide;
-- that they and the class be granted such other, further
and different relief that is necessary to remedy the
continuing harm caused by and prevent the recurrence
of Countrywide's unlawful conduct; and
-- that the court award them and their attorneys'
fees, costs and prejudgment interest and such other
relief as the court may deem just and proper.
The suit is "Symone Leyvas, et al. v. Bank of Commerce Corp. et
al., Case No. SA CV 08-787 DOC MLGx," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Christopher Kim, Esq. (christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com)
George Busu, Esq. (george.busu@lrklawyers.com)
Lim Ruger & Kim LLP
1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-955-9500
Fax: 213-955-9511
FLORIDA: Homeowner Sues Developers for Building on Bombing Range
----------------------------------------------------------------
A new class action lawsuit was filed over allegations of fraud
and other improper practices against those who built and sold
homes on and near a former World War II-era bombing range in
southeast Orlando, Central Florida News reports.
According to Central Florida News, the lawsuit was brought on
behalf of Lymarie Rodriguez, who bought a condominium near Lee
Vista Boulevard.
The suit alleged that the development companies, builders,
developers and lenders knew the homes they constructed were
being built on the former Pinecastle Jeep Range. The suit also
claimed that the defendants deliberately hid that information
from Ms. Rodriguez and other buyers.
Ms. Rodriguez' lawyer told Central Florida News that his clients
want to be reimbursed for their financial damages and for the
companies to buy back the homes.
The Class Action Reporter reported on May 5, 2008, that some
homeowners who live near the old Pinecastle Jeep Range in
Orange County have already commenced a legal action against
their neighborhood's builder -- K. Hovnanian.
According to the CAR report, the Army Corp of Engineers found
old army munitions on the land in 2007. Residents said the
value of their property has dropped significantly since the
discovery and they fear the land they live on is unsafe.
The Army Corp has found and destroyed more than 100 buried
military explosives in the area, which is also near Odyssey
Middle School.
FUZE BEVERAGE: Faces Lawsuit in California Over False Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Fuze Beverage and its founder, Lance Collins, are facing a
class-action complaint before the Los Angeles Superior Court
over allegations they falsely claim that their products can
fight cancer, reduce cholesterol, reduce weight, protect your
kidneys, and so on, CourtHouse News Service reports.
Named plaintiff Laura Ceballos claims that Mr. Collins
advertises that "Fuze Vitalize Blackberry Grape . . . helps
reinforce resistance to cold, influenza & infection of the
kidneys, bladder and lungs."
The complaint claims Mr. Collins, who "formulated the first line
of Fuze beverages in the basement of his house," did so "without
the benefit of any scientific research, testing or knowledge, as
Mr. Collins has no scientific and/or health background."
Mr. Collins claims that "Fuze Oolong Tea" can reduce the risk
"of developing cardiovascular disease and certain cancers," that
"Fuze Refresh . . . [is] known to improve circulation and reduce
to the cholesterol level in the blood," and so on, the complaint
states.
Ms. Ceballos says all those claims are false. She demands an
injunction, restitution and costs.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Wayne Kreger, Esq.
Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LP
2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: 310-396-9600 or
888-835-8055 (Toll Free)
Fax: 310-396-9635
Web site: http://www.makinjurylawyers.com/
HANAROTELECOM: 10,000 Former Customers Sign Up for Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on May 2, 2008, that
subscribers of South Korean broadband and fixed-line operator
Hanarotelecom (KSE:033630) launched a class-action lawsuit
against the company on April 28 amid allegations that former
management officials were involved in illegally selling
customer information in the past.
The May 2 CAR report related that Namkang Law & IP Firm, the
Seoul-based law firm representing 30 Hanarotelecom subscribers,
filed the lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court,
requesting that the company offer compensation of KRW1 million
(US$1,004) to each client for illegally selling their
information.
A subsequent CAR report on May 28, 2008, wrote that Yoo Chul-
min, an attorney in Seoul who has been gathering alleged victims
of the information leak through an Internet community, lodged
the lawsuit on behalf of 3,000 former and current users who had
subscribed to the company's service for at least a month between
2006 and the end of April 2008.
In an update, Kim Tong-hyung of the Korea Times writes that so
far, more than 10,000 of Hanarotelecom's former customers have
already signed up for the class-action lawsuit.
According to Mr. Kim, the KRW127.8 billion that SK Telecom,
which bought Hanarotelecom, may have to pay in damages won't
nearly be enough to cover the company's sufferings.
Korea Times notes that the troubled fixed-line telephony and
broadband Internet operator was hit by the Korea Communications
Commission -- the country's telecommunications and broadcasting
regulator -- with a 40-day suspension that continues until the
Beijing Olympic opening ceremony on Aug. 8 as punishment for
unlawfully using personal information of its subscribers for
telemarketing.
The Korea Times report points out that SK Telecom will end up
paying for the irregularities committed by Newbridge Asia HT,
AIG and seven other foreign investment funds that formerly owned
Hanarotelecom.
HUNTSMAN CORP: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is Sept. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 2008, the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.,
commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the 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 (Class Action Reporter, July 21, 2008).
Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 15,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment and not September 17, 2008,
as previously stated by the law firm.
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. The 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/
LEAPFROG INC: Settles California Securities Lawsuit for $2.3MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic toy maker LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., will pay
$2.3 million to settle the matter, "In Re LeapFrog Enterprises,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:03-cv-05421-RMW," which
was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, the Standford Law School Securities
Class Action Clearing House reports.
In December 2003, April 2005 and June 2005, six purported class
action lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors. The
suits allege violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
These actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding
captioned, "In Re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation."
On Jan. 27, 2006, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed an amended and consolidated complaint. The suit purports
to be a class action suit seeking unspecified damages on behalf
of persons who acquired the company's Class A common stock
between July 24, 2003, and Oct. 18, 2004.
The complaint alleges that the defendants caused the company to
make false and misleading statements about its business and
forecasts about its financial performance, that certain of its
individual officers and directors sold portions of their stock
holdings while in the possession of adverse, non-public
information, and that certain of the company's financial
statements were false and misleading.
In February 2008, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle
to settle these class actions (Class Action Reporter, May 21,
2008).
Under the settlement reached with shareholders, LeapFrog will
pay $2.3 million to settle allegations that it disguised
problems caused by competition.
The suit is "In Re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:03-cv-05421-RMW," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Ronald M. Whyte, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com)
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-288-4545
Fax: 415-288-4534
- and -
Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq. (jbai@bermanesq.com)
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
425 California Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94104-2205
Phone: 415-433-3200 x241
Fax: 415-433-6382
Representing the defendants are:
Leo Patrick Cunningham, Esq. (lcunningham@wsgr.com)
Daniel W. Turbow, Esq. (dturbow@wsgr.com)
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Phone: 650-320-4573
Fax: 650-565-5100
650-493-9300
LEXISNEXIS: Ga. Illegal Electronic Filing System Suit Amended
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit that claims LexisNexis Courtlink, Inc.,
and Fulton County State and Superior Courts officials are
running an illegal, mandatory, electronic filing system has been
amended, Jacqueline J. Holness write for the CourtHouse News
Service.
In December 2007, Steven J. Newton, Esq., filed the original
lawsuit. In March, he filed for a voluntary dismissal without
prejudice.
In June, he refiled the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia aiming to enjoin LexisNexis,
acting independently and as part of a joint enterprise and on
direction and authorization from the Government defendants, from
continuing to operate a system through which defendants have
been charging fees or costs to litigants or their counsel in
Fulton County Superior Court and Fulton County State Court for
filing documents and pleadings using their Electronic Filing
System (e-file of EFS) in excess of those authorized by Georgia
statute and in violation of other Georgia statutes (Class Action
Reporter, July 2, 2008).
In addition to LexisNexis Courtlink, the defendants are:
-- Mark Harper, chief clerk of the Fulton County State
Court;
-- A.L. Thompson, Fulton County State Court chief judge;
-- Doris L. Downs, Fulton County Superior Court chief
judge;
-- Cathlene "Tina" Robinson, clerk of the Fulton County
Superior Court, and
-- Fulton County, Ga.
Shortly after refiling his complaint, Mr. Newton said he
realized the location of the registered agent of LexisNexis
Courtlink had changed since he filed the original lawsuit.
Mr. Newton contends that filings in Fulton County State and
Superior Courts, filed through the LexisNexis File & Serve
system, can cost up to $11 per filing in cases for which
electronic filing is mandated by orders from Fulton County State
and Superior Courts, and authorized by the Fulton County Board
of Commissioners.
LexisNexis File & Serve is used in many court systems throughout
the country. The system is used statewide in Colorado district
and county courts, excluding Denver County Courts, according to
the LexisNexis Web site.
So, Mr. Newton said, he amended the first complaint to state
that LexisNexis Courtlink can be served at the Atlanta address
where it held training, or in Newton, Mass.
The plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all past,
current and future litigants who have been or will be charged
for the costs of their mandatory electronic filings in violation
of law.
Attorneys for the defendants have requested more time to respond
to the amended complaint.
Mr. Newton said no additional time should be granted. "It's
pretty much the same complaint I filed (months ago,)" he said.
The suit is "W. Phillip McCurdy, III, et al. v. Mark N. Harper,
et al., Case No. 1 08-CV-2145," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Steven J. Newton, Esq. (sjn@sjnlaw.com)
Law Offices of Steven J. Newton, PC
215 14th Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
Phone: 404-874-5006
Fax: 404-521-4477
NEWBRIDGE COLLEGE: Ex-Enrollees Sue Over Medical Job Promises
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain former students have filed a class-action lawsuit in the
Orange County Superior Court against Newbridge College, alleging
they were each defrauded out of $10,000 tuition by promises that
they could earn good salaries for medical jobs they were
ineligible to obtain, Marla Jo Fisher writes for The Orange
County Register.
According to the report, 12 former students contended that they
were persuaded to enroll on the promise that they needed only
training from Newbridge to get lucrative jobs as medical
laboratory technicians.
The plaintiffs said they did not learn until well into the
eight-month program that lab technician positions paying $18-$24
an hour require an accredited associate's degree that the school
does not offer.
"They sold us a course we cannot get a job in," Ernestine
Latimer, of Garden Grove, told the O.C. Register. "I owe at
least $8,000 to Bank of America now."
Newbridge's attorney, Keith Zakarin, Esq., of the Duane Morris
LLP, in San Diego, said the school makes it clear students will
be eligible only for entry-level jobs after they finish their
training. "No one was misled," Mr. Zakarin said.
The lawyer added that it would not benefit the college to
"enroll students in an outcome they cannot achieve."
Mr. Zakarin further told the O.C. Register, "This school has
been around since 1976 and is nationally accredited. . . .
They've served 4,000 to 5,000 students over the years, and this
is the first time there's been any lawsuit or significant
complaint. Overall, the majority of students have graduated,
been placed in jobs and lived happily ever after."
The report notes that Newbridge College enrolls about 500
students on campuses in Santa Ana, Long Beach, Monterey Park and
Glendale. According to the O.C. Register, a PennySaver ad from
Aug. 29, 2007, shows Newbridge advertising a medical laboratory
technician job with "short term classes" and "no high school
degree required."
The college also reported to the federal government that it was
offering a clinical or medical laboratory technician diploma
during the 2007-08 academic year for $9,950 to students who
completed 36 credit hours over eight months, according to the
National Center for Education Statistics.
However, the report explains, to become a licensed technician,
candidates must have at least an associate's degree or possess
three years' on-the-job training and pass a tough exam. The
jobs pay $30,000 to $47,000 a year, according to state
employment figures.
Without the license, students would only qualify for lower-paid
jobs as lab assistants, for example, who freeze specimens or
prepare blood or urine samples to be tested, shared Debbie
Wagner of Cupertino-based DeAnza College. Ms. Wagner runs one
of only two programs approved by the California Department of
Public Health to train medical laboratory technicians.
"Why would they pay $10,000 to be trained for a job that doesn't
pay any more than they earn now?" said the students' lawyer,
Scott Schutzman, Esq., who filed the lawsuit last month.
The confusion seems to result from changes in the state law that
took place in December, when the Department of Public Health
began regulating medical laboratory technician jobs and giving
them more authority and pay, according to the report. Before
December, only trained scientists with advanced degrees were
allowed to perform blood counts, urinalysis, cholesterol and
other laboratory tests in California.
However, because of a lack of a workforce, the state began the
process several years ago of changing the job descriptions to
allow a newly created breed of trained and licensed medical
laboratory technicians to perform those tests.
Newbridge students said they only learned they were ineligible
for the technician jobs during a field trip to a hospital
laboratory, when a lab director told them she would only hire
them as assistants.
"We were told by our instructors that a (certifying) test for
medical lab technicians was not going to be required until
2010," Ms. Latimer said. "Then, we get out into the field and
find out they want all the MLTs to have the test taken. Then
one of our classmates found out we can't even take the test;
we're not qualified because we don't have a degree."
Mr. Zakarin told the O.C. Register that, prior to the change in
the law, medical lab technician programs "did not need DPH
approval" except for the aspects that included phlebotomy
certification, which involves drawing blood.
The job to which he's referring, though, is that of a lab
associate -- essentially an assistant -- not a technician who
actually performs the tests.
"After the change in the law, the specific MLT job outcome
required an associate's (degree) and because NC's program is a
diploma program; it was not eligible for DPH approval of the
entire program," Ms. Zakarin said.
"The program's title was accordingly modified as soon as
possible after the law changed."
NOKIA CORP: Settles Workers' Lawsuit at Field Support Centers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corp. has settled a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court in Dallas over allegations that the Finnish
cellphone maker failed to pay overtime to certain employees at
its field support centers in Irving and elsewhere, Jeff Bounds
writes for the Dallas Business Journal.
According to the report, court records showed that Nokia
misclassified as independent contractors a group of employees
who provided telephone support for the company's field
technicians and installers, installing the company's equipment
at cellular sites across the country, along with configuring
equipment at cell sites.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs claimed that they "routinely"
worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not paid overtime
for that extra time on the job.
Terms of the recent settlement were not disclosed, the report
says.
Based in Espoo, Finland, Nokia Corp. makes a range of mobile
devices with services and software that enable people to
experience music, navigation, video, television, imaging, games,
business mobility.
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Last $1.6MM for Garment Workers Distributed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Garment Oversight Board has issued 11,353 new checks and
will be sending out 1,031 -- amounting to $1,599,495 -- to some
current and former garment workers pursuant to the settlement of
a labor class action lawsuit against the garment industry,
Ferdie de la Torre writes for the Saipan Tribune.
In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands on behalf of some garment workers who were
allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions. A settlement
reached five years after provided an award close to
$20 million. A $280,000 tax-related reserve was then set up.
The $130,000 tax reserve is allotted as:
* $100,000 to cover any future federal tax penalties,
* $25,000 to pay for efforts to secure abatements of all
penalties (both Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
and federal), and
* $5,000 to pay for preparation of the settlement fund's
2007 and 2008 tax returns.
The $156,000 balance of the fund are be remitted to the GOB,
which has offered to assume responsibility for obtaining refunds
and penalty abatements from the CNMI tax authorities.
The board's term was originally set to expire on July 29, 2007,
but the federal court extended this up to Dec. 31 (Class Action
Reporter, July 20, 2007).
In November 2007, the GOB began mailing out some checks to 74
garment workers who had problems encashing a check they received
from the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2007)
The workers were among the 356 workers who are all entitled to
checks totaling $53,000. GOB Chair Timothy Bellas said the
checks were replacement checks and were not new money for the
garment workers. Mr. Bellas said the check amounts range from a
minimum of $72.27 to a maximum of $799.50.
The original checks were issued by San Francisco-based claims
administrator Gilardi and Co. They were returned to the GOB
because they have not been cashed. Mr. Bellas said either they
are outdated or there are problems with the names or other
things.
In December 2007, the GOB laid out plans to distribute more than
$2.1 million to about 600 additional garment workers who claimed
they did not get any checks from the settlement (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 6, 2007).
The money was undistributed funds that the plaintiffs' counsel
turned over to the GOB.
Saipan Tribune learns that some former and current garment
workers who are still in the CNMI started receiving the checks
last week. The checks are the second they received under the
settlement.
Mr. Bellas told Saipan Tribune that they started sending the
11,353 checks in mid-June and the second batch will be sent by
July 26 or 28.
"It's for the total number of people that are entitled to checks
based on the settlement agreement. It's [for] the people who
cashed the first checks," the former judge said.
Mr. Bellas said the checks were sent or will be sent not only to
the eligible workers who are still in the CNMI but also to those
in other countries.
"If they're here on Saipan and they don't come in and tell us,
if [we have their address] in their home country, that's where
the checks will go. That's been a subject of confusion; they
are all coming in now saying 'I'm here.' If you don't come in
and tell us that, we have no way of knowing that that you're
[still] here," he said.
GOB has been distributing the checks to get rid of the leftover
money from the settlement funds.
"The idea is to pass on whatever is leftover because this is not
based on their how long the garment workers worked or anything.
This is just to finish up the money," Mr. Bellas said.
After the money goes out, there won't be any further
distributions, he said. Any money that is left over will be
placed in a Garment Workers Trust Fund to fund things as the GOB
deems appropriate.
"We have to see first how much money is left but, for instance,
if there is some sort of a problem with garment workers that we
need to help," GOB could use the leftover funds, he said.
Mr. Bellas said the Garment Workers Trust Fund will be funded
based on the checks that come back or don't get cashed.
For more details, contact:
Pamela M. Parker, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
Fax: 619-231-7423
Steven P. Pixley, Esq. (sppixley@aol.com)
2nd Floor, CIC Centre
Beach Rd., Garapan
P.O. Box 7757
SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950
Phone: 670-233-2898/5175
Fax: 670-233-4716
RIDLEY INC: Sup. Ct. Won't Allow Appeal for BSE Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada has denied the application of Ridley
Inc. and the Government of Canada for leave to appeal the
June 21, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario that
refused early dismissal of the proposed BSE class action lawsuit
filed against the company and the government by an Ontario dairy
farmer.
In April 2005, Ridley Inc., along with its majority shareholder,
Ridley Corporation Limited of Sydney Australia, and the
Government of Canada were named defendants in proposed class
action suits filed in four Canadian provinces. These lawsuits
sought damages, including punitive damages, for losses allegedly
incurred by Canadian cattle producers as a result of
international bans on the importation of Canadian beef and
cattle.
These bans followed the May 20, 2004 announcement of a bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) diagnosis in an Alberta cow.
None of the plaintiffs in any of the cases alleged any direct
connection between them and Ridley Inc.
Representative-plaintiffs seek to certify class actions in
Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec to include all
Canadian cattle farmers who allegedly suffered damage as a
result of international bans.
In October 2005, Ridley disclosed that it had filed and argued
preliminary motions seeking early dismissal of the BSE lawsuit
filed in the Ontario Superior Court for failure to state
actionable claims under Canadian law. Ridley had asserted
strong legal arguments supporting its request that the
Court strike the claims in advance of class certification
hearings or commencement of discovery.
In 2006, Ridley reported that the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice denied its motion for early dismissal of the proposed
class action (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006). In its
June 21, 2007 decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld
the January 2006 decision of the Ontario Superior Court.
In 2007, Ridley filed an application with the Supreme Court of
Canada to appeal a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal
denying Ridley's motion to strike claims of economic losses by
cattle producers affected by an international meat ban in 2004
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 7, 2007).
On February 5, 2008, Ridley reached a settlement agreement with
the representative-plaintiffs in the BSE class action lawsuits
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2008).
Under the settlement agreement, Ridley will pay CDN$6 million
into a plaintiffs' settlement trust fund and will effectively
cap its exposure to the claims made by the plaintiffs to
$6 million. However, Ridley will remain a participant in the
ongoing litigation as the plaintiffs continue their claim
against the Government of Canada.
Motions were heard in the Ontario Superior Court in June 2008
for certification of the Ontario lawsuit as a class action and
approval of the settlement agreement, but no decision has been
rendered yet by the Court on those motions.
The lawsuit in Quebec has been authorized as a class action and
the settlement agreement between Ridley and the plaintiffs has
been approved by the Superior Court of Quebec.
The Supreme Court of Canada's recent ruling has no bearing on
the settlement agreement, or the Ontario motions, or the
Superior Court of Quebec decision.
Ridley will remain a participant in the plaintiffs' continuing
litigation against the Government of Canada. In agreeing to the
settlement, Ridley made no admission of liability or wrongdoing
in the matter, and will continue to contest any allegation it
was responsible for the plaintiffs' damages.
Ridley Inc., headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg,
Manitoba, is one of North America's leading commercial animal
nutrition companies. Ridley manufactures and distributes a full
range of animal nutrition products under a number of highly
regarded trade names.
T-MOBILE USA: Loses Important Battle in Text Messaging Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA, Inc., a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG (NYSE:
DT), recently lost an important ruling when Judge Richard Jones
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington denied its motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a
group of disgruntled T-Mobile subscribers, claiming the
Bellevue-based company charges them -- and millions of T-Mobile
customers -- for unsolicited text messages.
Filed on Oct. 19, 2007, the suit alleged T-Mobile failed to tell
wireless customers that text messaging is a mandatory extra
feature because they are automatically charged for messages sent
to their phones (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007)
The plaintiff claimed T-Mobile's unfair and deceptive practices
violate Washington's Consumer Protection Act, are a breach of T-
Mobile's contract with its subscribers, and has unjustly
enriched the defendant.
According to the complaint, customers have no way to disable the
phones from receiving text messages, often in the form of spam,
and are forced to pay between 10 and 15 cents for every message.
The court's recent ruling allows the case to move forward.
"This ruling is a big win for T-Mobile customers and we're
looking forward to presenting our case to the court," said Steve
Berman, Esq., managing partner of Hagens Berman, the firm
representing the plaintiffs.
Currently, T-Mobile customers have few options for avoiding the
charges for unwanted text messages, the complaint states.
Customers can either continue receiving charges or terminate
their cellular service contract before completion, which can
result in early termination fees as high as $200.
"We don't believe either option is tenable for the company's 27
million subscribers," continued Mr. Berman. "It is noteworthy
that other carriers have found a way to allow customers to
disable this function."
According to named plaintiff Marco Zaldivar, in addition to
charging him for receipt of unwanted text messages, the company
also failed to highlight this practice in his service contract.
Mr. Zaldivar claims that nowhere did T-Mobile advertising
include the fact that the company charges customers for all
incoming messages. He alleges that both online and in-store T-
Mobile marketing materials only described text messaging as an
optional service for an additional monthly fee.
Judge Richard Jones thwarted T-Mobile's attempt to dismiss the
case, denying the company's arcane legal argument that the
complaint filed against them contained flaws in the way it made
certain allegations.
The suit is "Marco Zaldivar et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case
No. C07-1695," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-623-7292
Fax: 206-623-0594
- and -
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. (reed@hbsslaw.com)
Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. (jefff@hbsslaw.com)
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. (shanas@hbsslaw.com)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: 510-725-3000
Fax: 510-725-3001
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
TeleTech Holdings, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The class action lawsuit -- "Beasley v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc.,
et. al." -- was filed on Jan. 25, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against TeleTech,
certain of its current directors and officers, and other
defendants, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15
of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.
The complaint alleges, among other things, false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with:
-- a March 2007 secondary offering of common stock, and
-- various disclosures made and periodic reports filed by
the company between Feb. 8, 2007, and Nov. 8, 2007.
On Feb. 25, 2008, a second, nearly identical class action
complaint, entitled, "Brown v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al.,"
was filed in the same court.
On May 19, 2008, the two cases were consolidated, and a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed, according to the
company's July 16, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.
The suit is "In Re Teletech Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00913-
LTS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Laura Taylor Swain, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs)
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-367-7100
Fax: 631-367-1173
- and -
Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq.
Kahn, Gauthier Law Group, L.L.C.
650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: 504-455-1400
Fax: 504-455-1498
Representing the defendants are:
Geoffrey Hunter Coll, Esq. (gcoll@dl.com)
Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP
1101 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005-4213
Phone: 202-986-8146
Fax: 202-986-8102
- and -
Laurence Martin Berman, Esq. (lberman@mwe.com)
McDermott, Will & Emery L.L.P.
2049 Century Park East, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3218
Phone: 310-551-9308
Fax: 310-277-4730
TRILEGIANT CORP: $25MM Deal in "Pederson" Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois, granted final approval of a proposed $25-million
settlement in a nationwide class action lawsuit against
Trilegiant Corporation -- now known as Affinion Group, Inc. --
which suit is entitled "Pederson v. Trilegiant, Case No. 01-L-
1126."
The purported class action suit was filed against Trilegiant
in July 2001, in connection with various membership-based
products or programs offered, sold, serviced, or provided to
consumers by or through Trilegiant Corp. or an entity with which
Trilegiant has a business relationship, and for which the member
was charged a membership fee.
These products or programs include but are not limited to
Privacy Guard, Credit Alert, AutoVantage, Travelers Advantage,
Buyers Advantage, Complete Home, Digital Protection Plus, Great
Fun, Great Options, HealthSaver, Hot-Line, Just For Me, National
Card Registry, Netmarket.com, Shoppers Advantage, and Travel ER,
along with similar programs marketed or created with Trilegiant
that have the same or substantially the same characteristics of
these memberships, regardless of the name of the product.
The lawsuit claimed that Trilegiant enrolls consumers in
membership programs through deceptive or unfair means, and
places membership charges on consumers' credit or debit cards,
bank accounts, telephone bills, or home mortgage accounts
without proper authorization or consent. It further alleged
that Trilegiant refuses to cancel memberships upon a consumer's
request.
The settlement reached by the parties provides up to $25 million
in cash benefits, along with changes in the business practices
of Trilegiant and other relief.
The settlement resolves nationwide litigation against Trilegiant
for allegedly billing and collecting unauthorized charges from
consumers for products or memberships that consumers never
requested or consented to receive. It also resolves disputes
over alleged refusals to cancel memberships upon consumer
request.
Under the settlement, consumers who had unsolicited or
unauthorized charges for Trilegiant products posted to their
credit cards or other accounts for such Trilegiant products as
Privacy Guard, Credit Alert, Auto Vantage, Travelers Advantage,
Buyers Advantage, Compete Home, Digital Protection Plus, Great
Fun, Great Options, HealthSaver, Hotline, Just for Me, National
Card Registry, NetMarket, Shoppers Advantage, Travel ER, and
others, can file a claim to receive a minimum of $20 or whatever
they were charged--up to three times the cost of each Trilegiant
Product for which they were charged.
In addition to the cash compensation, the settlement requires
Trilegiant offer consumers an easy cancellation method,
affirmative relief regarding Trilegiant's business practices, a
charitable contribution, and payment by Trilegiant of all costs
and legal fees related to the lawsuit.
For more details, contact:
Trilegiant Claims Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.,
P.O. Box 670
Minneapolis, MN 55440-0670
Phone: 1-888-952-9102
Web site: http://www.trisettlement.com/
TYSON FOODS: Idaho Residents Sue Over Antibiotics in Chicken
------------------------------------------------------------
Two Idaho residents have asked a federal judge to certify a
class-action lawsuit against Tyson Foods Inc. over allegations
that the poultry company falsely advertised its chicken as
antibiotic-free despite the use of antibiotics, Rebecca Boone
writes for Fort Mills Times.
In the lawsuit, Richard and June Johnson of Weiser contend that
Tyson Foods ran a deceptive marketing scheme when it labeled its
chicken as being antibiotic-free despite injecting the eggs with
antibiotics just days before they hatched.
Fort Mills recounts that in 2007, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture said that the Springdale, Ark.-based Tyson could
label its foods as "raised without antibiotics." The USDA later
said it had overlooked an ingredient used in the chicken feed --
ionophores -- which are widely considered to be an antibiotic,
though they are not used to treat illnesses in humans. The
department thus reversed its decision after Tyson had spent
money on advertising and packaging. Tyson was later allowed to
say its products are "raised without antibiotics that impact
antibiotic resistance in humans."
However, according to Fort Mills, the USDA last month announced
that Tyson Foods also routinely gave chickens an antibiotic
called gentamicin, which is used in humans to cure cases of the
plague. Tyson responded that its label was still correct,
because the gentamicin was given as an injection while the chick
was still in the egg, not after it hatched. The USDA ordered
the company to stop using the labels.
In their lawsuit, filed before the U.S. District Court in Boise,
the Johnsons seek damages in excess of $5 million. They are
also asking that the lawsuit be certified as a class action on
behalf of all the people who purchased Tyson chicken labeled
either "raised without antibiotics" or "raised without
antibiotics that impact human antibiotic resistance" after June
2007.
Fort Mills relates that the suit contends that Tyson's marketing
practice was deceptive and that the company unjustly made money
from the marketing, and that it should be forced to give up all
the money it has made in connection with the chicken sales.
"Tyson's wrongful actions regarding its labeling, advertising,
promotion and sale of its supposedly antibiotic-free chicken as
described herein, was designed and indeed allowed it to make
enormous amounts of revenue at the expense of unknowing
consumers," the Johnsons stated in the lawsuit.
Tyson is also facing other lawsuits asserting similar claims.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 9, 2008,
Arkansas residents Rosalyn Mize and Linda Latimer filed a class
action complaint against Tyson on June 30, in the Texarkana
federal court of the Western District of Arkansas. Ms. Mize and
Ms. Latimer are seeking more than $5 million in damages and a
refund of all amounts received from the purchase of Tyson
chicken that was labeled free from antibiotics.
An earlier CAR report (June 27, 2008) also wrote that Tyson has
settled a class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas over its "Drug-Free" chickens.
Filed on April 25, 2008, by named plaintiffs from five large
states, the complaint claims that Tyson cheats its customers in
a "calculated and cynical fraudulent scheme," by falsely
claiming that its chickens are raised without antibiotics, and
charging more for them, "knowing full well that all of its
products were in fact raised with antibiotics." The plaintiffs
say the chicken behemoth "in fact uses a type of antibiotic
known as 'ionophores' in raising its chickens," and that "it is
undisputed that ionophores are antibiotics."
New Securities Fraud Cases
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. has commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of purchasers of CompuCredit Corporation common stock
during the period between November 6, 2006, through June 9,
2008.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. As a result of
defendants' false statements, CompuCredit stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching
its Class Period high of $40.61 per share in December 2006.
Then, on June 10, 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported that
federal regulators were expected to seek more than $100 million
in fines and restitution against CompuCredit related to
deceptive credit-card marketing tactics and abusive debt-
collection practices. On this news, CompuCredit's stock dropped
$2.49 per share to close at $6.30 per share on June 10, 2008, a
one-day decline of 28% on extremely high volume.
Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
July 14, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
The Brualdi Law Firm
29 Broadway, Suite 2400
New York, NY 10006
Phone: 877-495-1187 (toll free)
212-952-0602
Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/
FCSTONE GROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action lawsuiy has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of
purchasers of FCStone Group Inc. common stock during the period
between November 15, 2007, and July 9, 2008, inclusive.
The complaint charges FCStone and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
FCStone is an integrated commodity risk management company
providing risk management consulting and transaction execution
services to commercial commodity intermediaries, end users and
producers.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
FCStone's business and financial results. As a result of
defendants' false statements, FCStone stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching
its Class Period high of $52.40 per share in January 2008.
On June 22, 2008, an analyst with William Blair & Co. published
a research note on FCStone, which stated that while current
volatility in the agricultural commodities was increasing the
need of producers and consumers to hedge their exposure to these
commodities, the cost of hedging had dramatically increased due
to an increase in the margin requirements, making it more
difficult for producers and consumers to maintain hedge
positions, and that tighter bank credit was limiting the ability
of FCStone's customer base to hedge, which could cause
transaction volume to decrease. After this partial disclosure,
FCStone's stock fell $6.39 per share to close at $31.94 per
share.
Then, on July 10, 2008, before the market opened, the Company
issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2008
results, which included an after tax reduction in net income of
$4.2 million, or $0.14 per diluted share, including a
$1.1 million net bad debt write-off primarily related to the
consequences of unprecedented synthetic settlement pricing in
the cotton market, and a $3.1 million decline in the fair value
of interest rate derivative hedge instruments which had the
effect of reversing previously recognized unrealized gains. Upon
this disclosure, FCStone's stock dropped $12.26 per share to
close at $17.64 per share on July 10, 2008, a one-day decline of
41% on extremely high volume.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:
(a) the Company did not disclose the true risks associated
with an interest rate hedge it had entered into in the
first quarter of 2008;
(b) the Company was not adequately reserving for its
allowance for bad debts related to trading in the
cotton market in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles;
(c) the Company had far greater exposure to the volatility
in the commodities market and the turmoil in the credit
market than it had previously disclosed; and
(d) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its
financial reporting process required to enable it to
properly analyze and estimate the impact of its
hedging activities and to properly analyze and
estimate its allowance for doubtful accounts.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of FCStone common stock during the Class Period.
Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
July 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 800-449-4900
619-231-1058
FCSTONE GROUP: Howard Smith Files Missouri Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
FCStone Group, Inc., between April 10, 2008, and July 9, 2008,
inclusive.
The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the FCStone's financial performance and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of FCStone
stock.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 15,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Phone: 215-638-4847
Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.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 * * *