/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090406.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, April 6, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 67
Headlines
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bid to Junk Suit Over Vivendi Deal Pending
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Announces Dismissal of a Subscriber's Litigation
CINCINNATI BELL: Ohio Court Ruling on Bid in Anthem Suit Pending
FEDEX CORP: Lawyers Say Wash. Verdict Has No Impact in Ind. Case
FIRST HEALTH: May 26, 2009 Hearing Set for PPO Suit Settlement
GMAC LLC: Objector Appeals Approval of GM Securities Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Settles Calif. Ad Program Lawsuit For $20,000,000
HANNAFORD BROS: Maine Judge Hears Arguments in Data Breach Case
MASSACHUSETTS: MTA, MPA Face Suit Over Toll Collection Practices
MEDQUIST INC: Court OKs Deal in Medical Transcriptionist Lawsuit
METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE: Wash. Securities Suit in Discovery Phase
MOTOROLA INC: July 13 Hearing Set For Bluetooth Headset Deal
MURPHY OIL: Continues to Defend Lawsuit Over Fire at ROSE Unit
MURPHY OIL: Settlement Obligations Fulfilled as of Dec. 31, 2008
PANERA BREAD: Calif. Labor Code Breach Suit Settlement Finalized
PANERA BREAD: Pursues Dismissal of Mo. Securities Fraud Action
PANERA BREAD: Settlement of Johns Suit Gets Preliminary Approval
PIXELPLUS CO: N.Y. Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
RHODE ISLAND: RITBA Faces Litigation Over Toll Setting Practices
SANTA CRUZ: County, Officials Settles Ariz. Strip Search Lawsuit
SOURCEFIRE INC: June 12 Hearing Set for Md. Lawsuit Settlement
STEVE A. MCKENZIE: Faces Litigation Over "Fraudulent" Charges
UBS AG: Oregon Seeks $25M Recovery in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
UNITED STATES: ICE Sued For Holding Detainees in Calif. Facility
New Securities Fraud Cases
REGIONS FINANCING: Stull Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
*********
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bid to Junk Suit Over Vivendi Deal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing date has yet to be set on the motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in a purported class-action lawsuit
against Activision Blizzard, Inc., formerly Activision, Inc.
On Feb. 8, 2008, the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System
filed the putative class-action lawsuit against the parties to a
certain business combination agreement as well as certain
members of the company's board of directors.
The suit is challenging the transactions contemplated by a
business combination agreement, dated as of Dec. 1, 2007, among
Activision; Vivendi, S.A.; Vivendi Games, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Vivendi; and VGAC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Vivendi and the sole stockholder of Vivendi Games.
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that certain of
Activision's directors failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties
with regard to the transactions by "surrendering" the
negotiating process to "conflicted management," that those
breaches were aided and abetted by Vivendi and those of its
subsidiaries named in the complaint, and that a preliminary
proxy statement contains certain statements that the plaintiff
alleges are false and misleading.
The suit seeks a ruling from the court that, among other things:
-- certifies the case as a class action,
-- enjoins the transaction,
-- requires the defendants to disclose all material
information,
-- declares that the transaction is in breach of the
directors' fiduciary duties and therefore unlawful and
unenforceable,
-- awards the plaintiff and the putative class damages for
all profits and special benefits obtained by the defendant
in connection with the transaction and tender offer, and
-- awards the plaintiff its cost and expense, including
attorney's fees.
In a ruling on March 12, 2008, the court initially declined to
schedule a preliminary injunction hearing or allow broad
discovery, pending the company's filing of a revised preliminary
proxy statement in connection with the proposed transactions.
However, the court did order the parties to initiate discovery
of core documents, and the company made an initial production of
documents.
Moreover, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
grounds that were detailed in a brief filed on April 30, 2008.
The company also filed a motion to stay discovery in the case
pending a ruling on its dismissal motion.
Separately, Vivendi and its defendant-subsidiaries also
requested the court to dismiss the sole claim alleged against
them.
After various initial motions were filed and ruled upon, on May
8, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that, among
other things, added allegations relating to a revised
preliminary proxy statement filed by the company on April 30,
2008.
Additional motions were then filed, including a motion for
preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff and a motion filed
by Vivendi and its subsidiaries to dismiss the amended
complaint.
On June 24, 2008, the court granted Vivendi and its
subsidiaries' motion to dismiss pertaining to claims against
them. On July 1, 2008, the court denied the plaintiff's motion
for preliminary injunction (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 17,
2008).
On Dec. 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint. The court granted the
motion on Jan. 14, 2009, and the second amended complaint was
deemed filed on the same date.
The second amended complaint asserts claims similar to the ones
made in the original complaint, challenging Activision's Board
of Directors' actions in connection with the negotiation and
approval of the Business Combination, as well as disclosures
made to the company's shareholders and certain amendments made
to its certificate of incorporation in connection therewith.
In addition, the second amended complaint asserts that
Activision's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in
approving and recommending those amendments to the certificate
of incorporation.
Among other things, the plaintiff seeks certification of the
action as a class action, a declaration that amendments made to
the certificate of incorporation are invalid and unenforceable,
a declaration that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties, rescission of the Business Combination and
related transactions, and damages, interest, fees and costs.
On Feb. 13, 2009, the defendants filed their opening brief in
support of their motion to dismiss all claims in the complaint.
The plaintiff's opposition is due on March 31, 2009, and the
company's reply is due on April 30, 2009. No hearing date has
yet been set on the motion to dismiss, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.
Activision Blizzard Inc. -- http://www.activisionblizzard.com/
-- formerly Activision, Inc., is an online and console game
publisher. On July 9, 2008, the company was formed by combining
Activision, Inc., an independent publisher of interactive
entertainment, and Vivendi Games, Vivendi SA's interactive
entertainment business. The company's portfolio includes video
games, such as Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, and Tony Hawk, as well
as Spider-Man, X-Men, Shrek, James Bond and TRANSFORMERS,
franchises, such as Crash Bandicoot and Spyro and Blizzard
Entertainment's StarCraft, Diablo and Warcraft franchises,
including massively multi-player online role-playing game, World
of Warcraft. Activision Blizzard maintains operations in the
U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Sweden, Spain, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Romania,
Australia, Chile, India, Japan, China, the region of Taiwan and
South Korea.
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Announces Dismissal of a Subscriber's Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. announces that a purported class action
filed against it in the District Court of Central Region on
November 2007, in connection with allegations that the Company
has charged its subscribers for content services without
obtaining their specific consent in a manner which complies with
the provisions of the Company's general license, was dismissed
without prejudice and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice,
at the plaintiffs' request.
Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the
amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS432
million.
Cellcom Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il/--
established in 1994, is the leading Israeli cellular provider;
Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.187 million
subscribers (as at December 31, 2008) with a broad range of
value added services including cellular and landline telephony,
roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers
abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video,
mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically
advanced infrastructure. The Company operates an HSPA 3.5
Generation network enabling advanced high speed broadband
multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE and TDMA
networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest
customer service infrastructure including telephone customer
service centers, retail stores, and service and sale centers,
distributed nationwide. Through its broad customer service
network Cellcom Israel offers its customers technical support,
account information, direct to the door parcel services,
internet and fax services, dedicated centers for the hearing
impaired, etc. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly
owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P.,
provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in
addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares
are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL).
CINCINNATI BELL: Ohio Court Ruling on Bid in Anthem Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to rule on a motion by Cincinnati Bell, Inc. that seeks for
the dismissal of the matter, "Wayne Stapp et al. v. Broadwing,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00970," according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
The suit alleges that Cincinnati Bell defrauded policyholders of
459,223 shares of Anthem common stock when defendant Anthem
Insurance Cos., Inc., demutualized.
Also named as defendants in the suit are:
-- Broadwing IT Consulting, Inc.
-- BRCOM Inc.
-- Cincinnati Bell Any Distance, Inc.,
-- Cincinnati Bell Long Distance, Inc.,
-- Cincinnati Bell Directory, Inc.,
-- Cincinnati Bell Public Communications, Inc.,
-- Zoomtown.com, Inc.,
-- Cincinnati Bell Entertainment, Inc.,
-- Cincinnati Bell Wireless Company,
-- Cincinnati Bell Wireless, LLC,
-- Cincinnati Bell Technology Solutions, Inc.,
-- Cincinnati Bell Telecommunications Services, Inc.,
-- Cincinnati Bell Telecommunications Services, LLC,
-- Cincinnati Bell Supply Company,
-- Enterprise IT Consulting, LLC,
-- Anthem Inc. n/k/a Wellpoint, Inc., and
-- Community Insurance Co. f/k/a Community Mutual
Insurance, Co.
This is a class-action suit brought under the court's diversity
jurisdiction as expanded by the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 asserting state common law claims for breach of contract,
conversion and misappropriation, aiding and abetting conversion
and misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of agency
agreement seeking compensatory and punitive damages and other
appropriate relief (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 29, 2007).
Policyholders bring this action on behalf of individuals who
were named as insured persons covered under the Group Policy, or
who were members of a named group of insured persons covered
under the Group Policy, to recover the value of 459,223 shares
of Anthem common stock that should have been paid to them upon
the demutualization of Anthem Insurance, but which shares of
stock were improperly paid to and kept by Broadwing and its
subsidiaries and affiliates instead.
The plaintiffs pray that the court:
-- issue an order certifying the case as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Fed.R.civ.P., and
certifying the class as alleged and defined;
-- order broadwing and its subsidiaries to provide the
class members with an accounting of the Anthem shares
sold and the net proceeds received from the stock sales;
-- order Anthem to specifically perform its obligations
under insurance law and under the relevant agreements
between its predecessors in interest and CBI's
predecessors in interest, and thereupon issue,
distribute and deliver 918,446 shares of WellPoint
common stock to and among the class members to account
for the 2-for-1 stock split that occurred after January
2002;
-- grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in
favor of plaintiffs in the form of orders requiring
defendants, and each of them, to conform their conduct
to the terms of the specific performance order prayed
for;
-- award plaintiffs compensatory damages to be paid by
defendants and each f them, jointly and severally, with
respect to each claim for relief in amounts ranging
between $23.4 million and $75 million to be determined
from the evidence in accordance with law;
-- award plaintiffs punitive damages in amounts ranging
between $50 million and $150 million to be determined
from the evidence in accordance to law;
-- award plaintiffs their costs and expenses of this action
including reasonable attorneys' fees, together with pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate
allowed by law; and
-- grant such other and further relief as the court may
deem just and proper.
In February 2008, Cincinnati Bell filed a response in which it
denied all liability in the matter and raised a number of
defenses.
In October 2008, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
include additional claims against Wellpoint Inc., but not the
company. In response, the company filed a notice to dismiss the
amended complaint. The court has not yet ruled on the company's
motion (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2008).
In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate
five similar cases against Wellpoint Inc. and other employers
who received stock as a result of the demutualization, which
motion the company has opposed.
In February 2009, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment on all claims asserted against it.
The suit is "Wayne Stapp et al. v. Broadwing, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00970," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Eric H. Zagrans, Esq. (eric@zagrans.com)
Zagrans Law Firm
474 Overbrook Road
Elyria, Ohio 44035
Phone: 440-452-7100
- and -
Dennis P. Barron, Esq. (DennisPBarron@aol.com)
582 Torrence Lane
Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
Phone: 513-871-2369
FEDEX CORP: Lawyers Say Wash. Verdict Has No Impact in Ind. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for thousands of misclassified FedEx pickup and
delivery drivers say an April 1, 2009 King County, Washington
jury verdict in favor of FedEx has no impact on the nationwide
class action pending in U.S. District Court in Indiana,
according to Lynn Rossman Faris, a lead attorney in the Federal
multi-district litigation.
Faris, of the Oakland-based firm Leonard Carder LLP, said
while she believes the Washington drivers would ultimately
prevail, that case has little bearing on the broader Federal
actions. "I believe the jury was misled by FedEx's cleverly
drafted contract. There appear to be ample grounds for appeal,
but regardless, the Washington state case and the federal multi-
district litigation (MDL) are completely different cases based
on different laws and legal precedents, and, therefore, this
jury verdict should in no way be seen as a vindication of the
blatant misclassification practices of FedEx."
Faris added, "The Plaintiffs' nationwide ERISA claim, under
the Federal retirement law, which was certified for class
treatment in the MDL, was not involved in the state case. ERISA
claims are normally determined by a court not a jury." She said
the plaintiff's legal team in the MDL remains as confident as
ever in its position based on its repeated successes in
demonstrating that FedEx has engaged in a pattern of illegal
driver misclassification. For example,
-- Just last year FedEx paid $26.8 million in a case
involving 203 pickup and delivery drivers in
California whom the California Supreme Court
determined were misclassified by FedEx. The company
exhausted its appeals in that case.
-- The National Labor Relations Board and many states and
state administrative agencies have determined that
FedEx has misclassified its driver workforce to avoid
employment taxes. The company's business model is
under scrutiny by approximately 40 state agencies.
-- The Internal Revenue Service, after issuing and then
withdrawing a preliminary assessment against FedEx for
$319 million in taxes and penalties for a single tax
year, is currently investigating whether FedEx
misclassified its drivers in several different tax
years.
To date the Federal court in FedEx Ground Package System,
Inc. (MDL 1700) has certified 21 cases as class actions and is
considering certification of 11 others.
For more details, contact:
Lynn Rossman Faris, Esq.
Leonard Carder LLP
Phone: 510-272-0169
e-mail: lfaris@leonardcarder.com
FIRST HEALTH: May 26, 2009 Hearing Set for PPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial District, Madison
County, Illinois, will hold a fairness hearing on May 26, 2009
for the proposed settlement in the purported class-action
lawsuit captioned, "Richard C. Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic
Health Center, P.C., and Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed
Care, Inc. and First Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois, Case No. 04-L-1055."
This lawsuit was filed Sept. 24, 2004. In the suit, plaintiffs
claim that CCN Managed Care, Inc. (f/k/a Community Care Network,
Inc.), and First Health Group Corp., (collectively First
Health), operated Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) networks
through which healthcare payors improperly discounted the bills
of Illinois healthcare providers who treated workers'
compensation claimants and Illinois automobile accident policy
claimants.
For more details, contact:
LakinChapman, LLC
300 Evans Ave,
PO Box 229,
Wood River, IL
Phone: 618-254-1127
e-mail: ppo.classaction@lakinchapman.com
Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com
- and -
PPO Settlement Administrator
PO Box 1971
Fairbault MN 55021-6167
Phone: 1-866-680-6562
Web site: http://www.pposettlements.com
GMAC LLC: Objector Appeals Approval of GM Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
An objector appeals the approval of the settlement of the
consolidated case captioned, "In re General Motors Corporation
Securities and Derivative Litigation," according to GMAC LLC's
Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
On Sept. 19, 2005, a purported class-action complaint, "Folksam
Asset Management v. General Motors, et al.," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
naming as defendants GM; GMAC; and GM Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; Vice Chairman John
Devine; Treasurer Walter G. Borst; and Chief Accounting Officer
Peter Bible.
Plaintiffs purported to bring the claim on behalf of purchasers
of GM debt and/or equity securities during the period Feb. 25,
2002, through March 16, 2005.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b)
and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The complaint also alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 12(a) and, with respect to the individual
defendants, Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection with
certain registered debt offerings during the class period. In
particular, the complaint alleges that GM's cash flows during
the class period were overstated based on the "reclassification"
of certain cash items described in GM's 2004 Form 10-K. The
reclassification involves cash flows relating to the financing
of GMAC wholesale receivables from dealers that resulted in no
net cash receipts and GM's decision to revise Consolidated
Statements of Net Cash for the years ended 2002 and 2003. The
complaint also alleges misrepresentations relating to forward-
looking statements of GM's 2005 earnings forecast that were
later revised significantly downward.
In October 2005, a similar suit, asserting claims under the
Exchange Act based on substantially the same factual
allegations, was filed and subsequently consolidated with the
Folksam case, "Galliani, et al. v. General Motors, et al."
The consolidated suit was re-captioned, "as In re General Motors
Securities Litigation."
Under the terms of the Sale Transactions, GM is indemnifying
GMAC in connection with these cases.
On Nov. 18, 2005, plaintiffs in the Folksam case filed an
amended complaint, which adds several additional investors as
plaintiffs, extends the end of the class period to Nov. 9, 2005,
and names as additional defendants three current and one former
member of GM's audit committee, as well as independent
accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP.
In addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint,
the amended complaint adds a claim against defendants Wagoner
and Devine for rescission of their bonuses and incentive
compensation during the class period.
It also includes further allegations regarding GM's accounting
for pension obligations, restatement of income for 2001, and
financial results for the first and second quarters of 2005.
Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint specify
the amount of damages sought, and the defendants have no means
to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the
limited information available in the complaint.
On Jan. 17, 2006, the court made provisional designations of
lead plaintiff and lead counsel, which designations were made
final on Feb. 6, 2006. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second
amended complaint, which added various underwriters as
defendants.
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in In re General
Motors Securities and Derivative Litigation on Aug. 15, 2006,
(certain shareholder derivative cases brought against GM were
consolidated with In re General Motors Securities Litigation for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the
caption was modified). The amended complaint did not include
claims against the underwriters previously named as defendants;
alleged a proposed class period of April 13, 2000, through March
20, 2006; did not include the previously asserted claim for the
rescission of incentive compensation against Mr. Wagoner and Mr.
Devine; and contained additional factual allegations regarding
GM's restatements of financial information filed with its
reports to the SEC.
On Oct. 13, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the shareholder class action litigation,
which remains pending. On Dec. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint in the event
the Court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss. The
defendants have opposed the motion for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint.
On Dec. 13, 2005, defendants in In re General Motors Corporation
Securities Litigation (previously Folksam Asset Management v.
General Motors Corporation, et al. and Galliani v. General
Motors Corporation, et al.) and "Stein v. Bowles, et al." filed
a Motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate these cases for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
On Jan. 5, 2006, defendants submitted to the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation an Amended Motion seeking to add to
their original Motion the Rosen, Gluckstern, and Orr cases for
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan. On April 17, 2006, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order
transferring In re General Motors Corporation Securities
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with "Stein v. Bowles, et al.;" "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors
Corp., et al.;" "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al.;" and "Orr v.
Wagoner, et al." (while the motion was pending, plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed Rosen).
In October 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan appointed a special master for the purpose
of facilitating settlement negotiations in the consolidated
case, now captioned In re General Motors Corporation Securities
and Derivative Litigation.
The parties reached an agreement to settle the GM Securities
litigation on July 21, 2008, which required GM to pay $277
million. This settlement was finally approved by the District
Court in January 2009, and an objector filed a notice of appeal
to that approval order on Jan. 30, 2009.
Detroit-based GMAC LLC was founded in 1919, as a wholly owned
subsidiary of General Motors Corporation. In November 2006, GM
sold a 51% interest in the company to FIM Holdings LLC. On Dec.
24, 2008, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
approved the company's application to become a bank holding
company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended.
GOOGLE INC: Settles Calif. Ad Program Lawsuit For $20,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Google Inc. reached a $20,000,000 settlement for the purported
class-action lawsuit, "CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v.
Google Inc., Case No. 5:2005-cv-03649," Mediapost reports.
The class-action lawsuit was filed by two small business
advertisers, namely Minnesota-based printing company CLRB Hanson
Industries and N.J.-based Howard Stern (not the radio
personality); they argued that Google had charged them more for
ads on certain days than they'd agreed to pay for, according to
Mediapost.
Google countered that it had only overcharged them to make up
for days when it under-delivered ads, but still chose to end the
litigation with a settlement. Both plaintiffs will receive
$20,000; Google agreed to pay their lawyers more than $5
million. Other affected advertisers will get AdWords credits,
Mediapost reported.
In a statement to Mediapost, a company spokesperson said,
"Google believes the claims are without merit, but we are
pleased to have the litigation behind us and to move forward
with our business objectives."
In mid-2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California ruled that the lawsuit, which is challenging
Google Inc.'s AdWords billing practices, may proceed (Class
Action Reporter, June 4, 2008).
AdWords is Google's primary advertising program and is the main
source of its revenue. AdWords ads appear on Google.com as well
as on Google partner sites like Ask.com (Class Action Reporter,
April 24, 2008). AdWords ads, however, may also appear on
third-party Web sites, which use AdSense, the other side of the
Google advertising model.
Google charges its advertising customers when someone "clicks"
on one of their ads. During the sign-up process, users tell
Google the maximum that they are willing to pay per "click."
During this process, users encounter two adjacent boxes. Into
the first, customers enter the amount they wish to pay per
"click" of an ad displayed on Google.com. The second box is
marked "optional." Into this box, a user can enter the amount
they would be willing to pay per "click" of an ad appearing on a
third party web page. But leaving the box blank does not
prevent ads from appearing on third-party sites.
Instead, Google places the ads on third-party sites anyway. And
users are automatically charged per click based on the amount
they entered into the first box. This suit arises from the fact
that both actions occur without the user being informed.
Ads on third-party sites are widely-acknowledged to be far less
effective (and therefore less valuable to the advertiser) than
ads on Google.com. Google, of course, still profits greatly
from these ads.
Filed in 2005, plaintiffs in the suit seek to represent all
Google AdWords advertisers who have been charged more than their
per day daily budget, and will request the Court to certify the
lawsuit as a class action.
On May 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied, in part, Google's motion for
summary judgment, and determined that a lawsuit challenging,
among other things, Google's practice of charging AdWords
advertisers more than an advertiser's specified per day "daily
budget" may proceed.
The suit is "CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc.,
Case No. 5:2005-cv-03649," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware,
presiding.
For more information, contact:
Shel F. Raphael, Esq.
Wolf Popper LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: +1-212-459-4600
HANNAFORD BROS: Maine Judge Hears Arguments in Data Breach Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge D. Brock Hornby of the U. S. District Court for the
District of Maine has heard arguments in a purported class-
action lawsuit against Hannaford Bros. over a data breach that
exposed more than 4 million credit and debit card numbers to
computer hackers, Trevor Maxwell of The Portland Press Herald
reports.
On April 1, 2009, Judge Hornby heard arguments from both
parties. Attorneys for Hannaford asked the judge to dismiss the
lawsuit, which was filed against the Scarborough-based company
last year. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said Judge Hornby
should certify the case as a class-action suit and let it
proceed toward trial, according to The Portland Press Herald
report.
The upcoming ruling will determine whether parts or all of the
suit will go forward, reports The Portland Press Herald.
The Morning Sentinel previously reported that case against the
Scarborough-based supermarket giant began as more than 20
individual complaints were filed in four states. Specifically,
the massive breach that compromised up to 4.2 million credit and
debit card numbers used at 165 Hannaford supermarkets in the
Northeast and 106 Sweetbay stores in Florida sparked 14 lawsuits
in Maine, seven in Florida, one in New Hampshire and one in New
York (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008).
The request to consolidate the lawsuits filed before the U.S.
District Court in Bangor, Maine, on behalf of Greg Doherty and
all others similarly situated, asserted that Hannaford was
negligent in not providing adequate data security and did not
inform customers of the breach quickly enough (Class Action
Reporter, April 21, 2008).
As recounted in earlier CAR reports, the breach occurred between
Dec. 7, 2007, and March 10, 2008, and Hannaford did not notify
the public of the breach until March 17, 2008.
The suit seeks credit monitoring or similar protection,
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.
MASSACHUSETTS: MTA, MPA Face Suit Over Toll Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
A retired University of Rhode Island business professor filed a
purported class-action suit against the Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority and the Massachusetts Port Authority, accusing them of
"blatant" discrimination in the tolls they charged out-of-state
residents, the Providence Journal reports.
The lawsuit, captioned, "Surprenant, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-10428," was filed on March
20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by the Stull, Stull and Brody firm on behalf of a
Rhode Island resident claiming tolls on the Tobin Bridge and the
Sumner and Ted Williams tunnels illegally benefits residents in
those areas.
The plaintiff, Carol L. Surprenant filed the lawsuit alleging
that the agencies charge up to 10 times what state residents
pay, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Providence
Journal reported.
Non-residents using the Newport Bridge are charged just over two
times the resident toll rate, according to a report in the
Providence Journal.
MEDQUIST INC: Court OKs Deal in Medical Transcriptionist Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MedQuist Inc. (Nasdaq: MEDQ), a leading provider of medical
transcription services, is pleased to announce entry of final
judgment approving settlement and dismissing the consolidated
medical transcriptionist class action commenced against the
Company following disclosure of the results of the internal
review of its historic billing practices in July 2004.
MedQuist said that it cares deeply about its workforce, and
throughout this litigation the Company maintained that it has
always correctly paid its medical transcriptionists, that it did
nothing wrong, and that the allegations in the suit were
completely meritless.
The Court's action this week vindicates the Company's
position: "[N]otwithstanding Plaintiffs' expansive discovery and
investigative work, no evidence emerged to support their
allegations that MedQuist had systematically underpaid its
transcriptionists." The full text of the Court's Final Judgment
and Opinion are available through the Company's Web site at
http://www.MedQuist.com.
As originally reported by MedQuist in December 2004 and
October 2005, certain individual medical transcriptionists
commenced class action litigation against the Company alleging
that MedQuist systematically and wrongfully underpaid medical
transcriptionists. After it became clear that Plaintiffs could
not prove the claims alleged against MedQuist, the parties
reached a settlement, whereby MedQuist agreed to an injunction
requiring it to implement certain measures to ensure
transparency in medical transcription pay. MedQuist said that
it hopes that as a recognized leader in the medical
transcription field, its agreement to increase transparency will
pave the way for similar measures throughout the industry.
As part of the settlement, the Company also agreed to pay
$1.5 million, approximately $1.1 million of which will be given
to the Association for Healthcare Documentation Integrity (AHDI)
to fund programs for the general benefit of medical
transcriptionists and the medical transcription industry. The
balance of the settlement funds will be paid to cover settlement
administration costs and Plaintiffs' counsel's out-of-pocket
expenses. Because there was no evidence to support Plaintiffs'
allegations that transcriptionists were systematically
underpaid, the settlement approved by the Court does not include
any payment to the named Plaintiffs or the settlement class
members, nor does the settlement include any payment for
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. However, as part of the
settlement, AHDI agreed to offer certain programs free of charge
to class members as outlined in the settlement documentation.
Additional information about these benefits is available
through the settlement administrator at
http://www.transcriptionistsettlement.comand/or AHDI at
http://www.ahdionline.org.
Resolution of this litigation follows the Company's
resolution of the previously disclosed Department of Justice and
Securities and Exchange Commission investigations, the
previously disclosed settlements reached in the South Broward
customer class action and the Steiner shareholder class action,
and dismissal with prejudice of the Kanter shareholder
derivative class action. The Company has now resolved all class
action litigation and governmental investigation matters arising
from the internal review of its historic billing practices.
MedQuist -- http://www.medquist.com-- provides medical
transcription services and technology-enabled clinical
documentation workflow. MedQuist's enterprise solutions --
including mobile voice capture devices, speech recognition, Web-
based workflow platforms, and global network of medical editors
-- help healthcare facilities improve patient care, increase
physician satisfaction, and lower operational costs.
METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE: Wash. Securities Suit in Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class-action suit, "In re
Metropolitan Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-04-0025-FVS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington.
The suit was originally filed on Jan. 20, 2004. On Feb. 4,
2004, Metropolitan Mortgage & Securities Company, Inc. and
Summit Securities, Inc. filed for bankruptcy.
On Aug. 11, 2004, the Court appointed individual investors to
serve as lead plaintiffs in the suit and appointed the law firms
of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP and Gordon Thomas Honeywell
Malanca Peterson & Daheim LLP to serve as attorneys for the Lead
Plaintiffs.
In December 2004, attorneys representing thousands of purchasers
of securities issued by Metropolitan and Summit, both of which
are in bankruptcy, filed an amended complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
The suit claims that certain officers and directors of
Metropolitan and Summit, as well as certain professional
organizations which provided services to Metropolitan and
Summit, violated federal and state securities laws in connection
with the sale of those securities.
On Nov. 5, 2007, the Court granted Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Class Representatives' fraud claims, certain federal
claims against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Roth Capital
Partners, LLC, certain federal claims against the director
defendants, and certain claims against defendants brought under
Washington state law.
On March 21, 2008, the Court denied Defendants' remaining
motions to dismiss.
On Nov. 25, 2008, the Court granted the Class Representatives'
motion to certify the Class to pursue federal claims, appointed
Lead Plaintiffs and other individual investors as Class
Representatives, and appointed the Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
LLP and Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim LLP
firms to serve as attorneys for the Class.
On Jan. 6, 2009, the Court denied the Class Representatives'
motion to certify another class of individuals who had purchased
Metropolitan Preferred Stock Series G or H and/or Summit
Preferred Stock Series R or T during the Class Period to pursue
claims under Washington state law.
Discovery is ongoing in the case, and trial is set to begin in
March 2010.
For more details, contact:
IN RE METROPOLITAN SECURITIES LITIGATION
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990
Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990
Phone: 800-447-7657
e-mail: metropolitanlitigation@gilardi.com
MOTOROLA INC: July 13 Hearing Set For Bluetooth Headset Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on July 6, 2009 on 1:30 p.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "Bluetooth Headset
Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:07-ml-01822-DSF-E,"
which names Motorola, Inc.; Plantronics, Inc.; and GN Netcom,
Inc./"Jabra" as defendants.
The hearing will be held before Judge Dale S. Fischer, Roybal
Federal Building, Courtroom 840, 255 East Temple St., Los
Angeles, CA 90012.
In 2006, Motorola faced several class-action complaints in
several states over allegations that it has put the hearing of
consumers at risk, since its Bluetooth headsets exceed safe
decibel levels and it failed to warn customer of the potential
dangers (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007).
The suits allege that Motorola's headsets have volume controls,
which produce sounds exceeding 85 decibels, with sound often
peaking in excess of 100 decibels. It contends that without
resorting to scientific testing, the consumer cannot determine
the decibel level of the sound being emitted from the headset.
In a 2006 test performed by the American Speech-Hearing-Language
Association, Motorola's H700 model headset produced decibel
levels of up to 106 decibels (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 206,
2006).
The suits pointed out that that someone can develop hearing loss
if they are exposed to such levels between three and four
minutes a day.
Though the company sold the headsets with a booklet containing
safety information, the suit alleges that it "omitted and
concealed [from consumers] any safety information pertaining to
the headsets' propensity for causing noise-induced hearing
loss." The suits add that the company also omitted information
about the headsets' decibel level.
The suits claim that users are often forced to turn up the
volume on the devices, due to the background noise that comes in
through the users' non-Bluetooth-connected ear.
"By design," the suits allege that the company "put consumers at
risk of suffering serious hearing loss when the headsets are put
to their normal and intended use." It goes on to allege that
"millions of consumers have had their hearing put at risk by
Motorola's headsets."
The suits seek:
-- an award of unspecified damages to the class;
-- a temporary restraining order to keep Motorola from
selling, marketing or advertising the headsets without
a detailed warning regarding potential hearing loss;
and
-- other unspecified damages.
In February, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, ordered that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, the
actions pending outside the Central District of California are
transferred to the Central District of California and with the
consent of that Court, assigned to the Honorable Dale S. Fischer
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The multidistrict litigation consolidates dozens of cases
brought forth by plaintiffs alleging that the headsets cause
hearing loss and Motorola failed to warn consumers of that
danger.
The suit is "Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 2:07-ml-01822-DSF-E," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Dale S.
Fischer, with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Stephen M. Garcia
David Michael Medby
Garcia Law Firm
One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
Long Beach, CA 90831
Phone: 562-216-5270
562-216-5270
E-mail: sgarcia@lawgarcia.com or dmedby@lawgarcia.com
Representing defendants are:
Terrence J. Dee P.C.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Aon Center
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-6636
Phone: (312) 861-2099
Fax: (312) 861-2200
- and -
Michelle Inouye Schultz
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
777 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
Phone: (213) 680-8489
Fax: (213) 680-8500
MURPHY OIL: Continues to Defend Lawsuit Over Fire at ROSE Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corp. continues to defend a lawsuit filed in
connection with a June 10, 2003 fire that severely damaged the
Residual Oil Supercritical Extraction unit at the company's
Meraux, Louisiana refinery.
The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel.
Subsequent to the fire, numerous class-action suits have been
filed seeking damages for area residents. All the lawsuits have
been administratively consolidated into a single legal action in
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for one action filed in
federal court.
On May 5, 2004, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St.
Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct action
against certain of the company's liability insurers.
The St. Bernard Parish action has since been removed to federal
court, which issued an order on July 25, 2008, denying the
plaintiff's request to certify the case as a class. (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 17, 2008).
In responding to this direct action, one of the company's
insurers, AEGIS, has raised lack of coverage as a defense.
The company said that it believes this contention lacks merit
and has been advised by counsel that the applicable policy does
provide coverage for the underlying incident, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.
Murphy Oil Corp. -- http://www.murphyoilcorp.com/-- is a global
oil and gas exploration, and production company with refining
and marketing operations in North America and the U.K. The
Company's operations are classified into two business
activities: Exploration and Production, and Refining and
Marketing.
MURPHY OIL: Settlement Obligations Fulfilled as of Dec. 31, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2008, has fulfilled its
obligations under the Class Action Settlement Agreement relating
to damages over crude oil release.
On Sept. 9, 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal
court in the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking unspecified
damages to the class comprised of residents of St. Bernard
Parish caused by a release of crude oil at Murphy Oil USA,
Inc.'s (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Murphy Oil Corporation)
Meraux, Louisiana, refinery as a result of flood damage to a
crude oil storage tank following Hurricane Katrina.
Additional class action lawsuits were consolidated with the
first suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.
In September 2006, the Company reached a settlement with class
counsel and on Oct. 10, 2006, the court granted preliminary
approval of a class action Settlement Agreement.
A Fairness Hearing was held Jan. 4, 2007, and the court entered
its ruling on Jan. 30, 2007, approving the class settlement.
The majority of the settlement of $330 million will be paid by
insurance. The Company recorded an expense of $18 million in
2006 related to settlement costs not expected to be covered by
insurance. As part of the settlement, all properties in the
class area received a fair and equitable cash payment and have
had residual oil cleaned. Also, as part of the settlement, the
Company offered to purchase all properties in an agreed area
adjacent to the west side of the Meraux refinery; these property
purchases and associated remediation have been paid by the
Company at a cost of $55 million.
Approximately 40 non-class action suits regarding the oil spill
have been filed and remain pending, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Murphy Oil Corp. -- http://www.murphyoilcorp.com/-- is a global
oil and gas exploration, and production company with refining
and marketing operations in North America and the U.K. The
Company's operations are classified into two business
activities: Exploration and Production, and Refining and
Marketing.
PANERA BREAD: Calif. Labor Code Breach Suit Settlement Finalized
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class-action suit filed against
Panera Bread Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Northern California was finalized in early fiscal 2009.
The suit was filed on March 19, 2008, against the company and
one of its subsidiaries by Marion Taylor, a former employee. It
alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor
Code for failure to pay termination compensation and failure to
provide rest and meal periods.
The suit seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find
just and proper (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2008).
Following mediation with the plaintiff, the company entered into
a settlement agreement in late fiscal 2008. The settlement was
finalized in early fiscal 2009, according to the company's Feb.
27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2008.
The suit is "Taylor v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No.
3:08-cv-01519-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Northern California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com)
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: 816-714-7100
Fax: 816-714-7101
Representing the defendants is:
Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com)
Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation
650 California Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
Phone: 415-433-1940
Fax: 415-743-6641
PANERA BREAD: Pursues Dismissal of Mo. Securities Fraud Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Co. continues to seek the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2008.
Intially, on Jan. 25, 2008, and Feb. 26, 2008, two purported
class-action lawsuits were filed against the company and three
of its current or former executive officers by the Western
Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and by Sue Trachet,
respectively, on behalf of investors who purchased the company's
common stock during the period between Nov. 1, 2005, and July
26, 2006.
Each complaint alleges that the company and the other defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 under the U.S.
Exchange Act in connection with its disclosure of system-wide
sales and earnings guidance during the period from Nov. 1, 2005,
through July 26, 2006.
Also, each complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.
On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and the Western
Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust was appointed lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On Aug. 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which extended the class period to Nov. 1, 2005 through July 26,
2007.
On Oct. 6, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss all of
the claims in the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20,
2008).
In November 2008, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
company's motion to dismiss, and on Dec. 3, 2008, the company
filed a reply memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss.
The suit is "Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust
v. Panera Bread Co., et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00120-ERW," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Judge E. Richard Webber, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia, LLP
58 S. Service Road
Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-367-7100
Fax: 631-367-1173
- and -
Don R. Lolli, Esq. (dlolli@dysarttaylor.com)
Dysart and Taylor
4420 Madison Avenue
Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: 816-931-2700
Fax: 816-931-7377
Representing the defendants are:
Miranda Hooker, Esq. (miranda.hooker@wilmerhale.com)
Wilmer and Cutler
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
617-526-6000
- and -
Jeffrey J. Kalinowski, Esq.
(jeff.kalinowski@huschblackwell.com)
Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP
720 Olive Street
24th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: 314-345-6000
Fax: 314-345-6060
PANERA BREAD: Settlement of Johns Suit Gets Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement in a purported class-action suit before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California,
entitled "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No. 3:08-
cv-01071-SC," has been preliminarily approved by the court.
The suit was filed on Feb. 22, 2008, against the company and one
of its subsidiaries by a former employee of the company, Pati
Johns.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code for
failure to pay overtime and termination compensation. It seeks,
among other relief, collective and class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find
just and proper (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2008).
Following mediation with the plaintiff, the company entered into
a settlement agreement in late fiscal 2008, which has been
preliminarily approved by the court, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2008.
The suit is "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No.
3:08-cv-01071-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Northern California, Judge Samuel Conti, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com)
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: 816-714-7100
Fax: 816-714-7101
Representing the defendants is:
Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com)
Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation
650 California Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
Phone: 415-433-1940
Fax: 415-743-6641
PIXELPLUS CO: N.Y. Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on March 19, 2009, granted final approval of the
settlement of the previously-disclosed consolidated shareholder
class action lawsuit commenced against Pixelplus Co., Ltd. and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in
April 2006.
Pixelplus Co., Ltd. (Pink Sheets: PXPLY) is a fabless
semiconductor company in Korea that designs, develops, and
markets CMOS image sensors for consumer electronics
applications.
Based on this final approval by the Court and consistent
with the terms of the settlement, all claims against the Company
and its current and former officers and directors have been
dismissed with prejudice and without any admission of liability
or wrongdoing.
"Now that the Court has granted final approval of the
settlement, Pixelplus may put this longstanding matter behind it
and direct the Company's energies and resources on its business
objectives," said Shane Y. Hong, Pixelplus' General Counsel.
Pixelplus -- http://www.pixelplus.com/-- is a South Korea-based
developer of high-performance, high-resolution, and cost-
effective CMOS image sensors for use primarily in mobile camera
phones. In addition to mobile phones, Pixelplus provides CMOS
image sensors and SoC solutions for use in webcams and notebook
embedded cameras, toys and games, and security and surveillance
system applications. As a fabless semiconductor company,
Pixelplus is focused on creating proprietary design technologies
to develop CMOS image sensors with sharp, colorful and enhanced
image quality, size efficiency, and low power consumption.
RHODE ISLAND: RITBA Faces Litigation Over Toll Setting Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority faces a purported
class-action in federal court alleging the resident-rate tolls
on the Claiborne Pell Newport Bridge are unconstitutional,
Adrienne Downing of The Jamestown Press reports.
The suit captioned, "Cohen v. Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge
Authority, Case No. 1:2009-cv-00153," was filed on March 27,
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
by Isabel S. Cohen.
In a 22-page filing with the United States District Court in
Rhode Island, attorneys for Ms. Cohen, a resident of Fairfield
County in southwestern Connecticut, allege that Ms. Cohen's and
other class action members' rights were violated when RITBA
charged them a higher toll rate to visit Newport as a tourist
destination., according to The Jamestown Press report.
In particular, the lawsuit said Ms. Cohen "has paid tolls at the
Newport Bridge using her E-Z Pass transponder in the course of
interstate, round trip travel from Connecticut to Rhode Island
for the purpose of tourism. In the course of interstate travel,
during which she was assessed the non-resident toll fee,
plaintiff purchased a variety of goods and services, including
food, fuel, personal training, jewelry, and beverages."
The lawsuit said that RITBA's toll-pricing structure "violates
the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution .
by granting substantial discounts to Rhode Island residents,
denying discounts to non-resident travelers utilizing the same
facility."
The Jamestown Press reported that the lawsuit requests an
injunction requiring any toll revenue collected from non-
resident travelers, in excess of the resident rate, to be placed
in a trust pending the outcome of the case. It also claims the
plaintiffs in the case are entitled to a refund of the excess
tolls and pre and post judgment interest.
The suit was filed by Rhode Island attorney Stephen White's
Warwick office, and also lists Stull, Stull and Brody, a law
firm with offices in New York and Los Angeles.
Both Rhode Island resident and out-of-state travelers are
permitted to purchase Rhode Island E-Z Pass transponders for use
at the bridge, but Rhode Island residents must establish proof
of residency to receive the discounted 83-cent rate. Proof of
residency can include a utility bill, tax bill, copy of a lease
or rental agreement or a Rhode Island college identification
card, reports The Jamestown Press.
Non-residents who make less than 31 trips in 30 calendar days
are charged the $1.75 rate. Out of state travelers who make
more than 31 trips during the same period are charged under the
Rhode Island commuter rate and receive a discounted rate of 91-
cents per crossing, The Jamestown Press reported.
SANTA CRUZ: County, Officials Settles Ariz. Strip Search Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Cruz County, Arizona settled for $3.2 million a purported
class-action lawsuit over strip-searches in the Santa Cruz
County Jail in Nogales, Brian J. Pedersen of The Arizona Daily
Star reports.
The suit, captioned, "Garcia v. Santa Cruz County, et. al., Case
No. 4:2008-cv-00139," was filed on Feb. 25, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona by Nogales resident
George Victor Garcia. It named as defendants Santa Cruz County,
Sheriff Tony Estrada and several others.
The Arizona Daily Star reported that people who were booked into
the jail between Feb. 25, 2006, and Aug. 26, 2008, are eligible
to file a claim to get a piece of the settlement reached earlier
this year in U.S. District Court.
Mark Merin, Esq., a Sacramento, Calif.-based civil-rights lawyer
involved in the suit estimates that as many as 4,000 people will
be able collect between $15 and $9,250 for being strip-searched
or subjected to body-cavity searches at the Santa Cruz County
Jail, depending on what type of offense they had been charged
with and whether they suffered physical or emotional harm as a
result of the search.
During the time period affected, jail officials violated
people's Fourth and 14th Amendment rights because they were
being searched before being arraigned and without probable cause
to believe such searches would produce contraband or weapons,
Mr. Merin tells The Arizona Daily Star.
Mr. Merin also told The Arizona Daily Star, "Everybody who was
going to be housed was strip-searched. They weren't making
distinctions between people who they had reason to believe were
concealing contraband or people accused of crimes that were more
likely to be concealing contraband."
He explained that typically, only those who are charged with
crimes involving drugs, violence and weapons are automatically
searched, yet Santa Cruz County Jail personnel searched many
others, often conducting the searches in groups and within view
of people of the opposite sex, according to The Arizona Daily
Star report.
SOURCEFIRE INC: June 12 Hearing Set for Md. Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland will hold a
fairness hearing on June 12, 2009 at 2:15 p.m for the proposed
settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit pending against Sourcefire, Inc.
A putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit is
captioned, "Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01210-WMN" (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).
Since then, two other putative class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland against the company
and certain of its officers and directors and other parties
making similar allegations.
These two additional suits are:
1. "Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc.. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01351-JFM," and
2. "Joan Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01425-WMN."
In addition, a fourth putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its officers and directors
and other parties making similar allegations. The fourth suit
is captioned, "Barry Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH."
Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and in an order entered
on June 29, 2007, by the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of New York, the Pincus case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
The actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the company's initial public offering.
The lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 and
Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in
connection with allegedly material misleading statements and
omissions contained in the registration statement and
prospectus.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of
class action status, compensatory and rescission damages, a
rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and
costs on behalf of a putative class.
On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidate
the four cases, to appoint her as lead plaintiff, and to approve
her choice of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, and
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel. The court granted
Ms. Amrhein's request.
On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been
asserted in one or more of the four original actions.
On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint, which motion was granted in part and
denied in part.
In May 2008, the defendants filed an answer denying all
liability, and later, the court entered a scheduling order.
On or about June 18, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, for the appointment of class representative
and for the appointment of class counsel and liaison counsel for
the class. The defendants' opposition to that motion is due on
or before Nov. 19, 2008, and any replies are due on or before
Jan. 9, 2009.
On July 16, 2008, the court granted the parties' motion to amend
the prior scheduling order to provide the parties with an
opportunity to conduct a mediation. The initial meeting with
the mediator took place on Oct. 17, 2008.
The Court has not made a determination of whether a class can be
certified, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.
The suit is "Howard Katz, et al. v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-01210-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY, 10022
Phone: 212-687-1980
Fax: 212-687-7714
e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
100 East Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD, 21202
Phone: 410-752-9700
Fax: 410-757-5460
e-mail: webmaster@tydingslaw.com
STEVE A. MCKENZIE: Faces Litigation Over "Fraudulent" Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit was included on March 30, 2009
in the bankruptcy of Steve A. McKenzie that alleges the
Cleveland businessman was the mastermind of a scheme to
fraudulently charge and collect from four Florida women and
numerous others similarly situated, David Davis of Cleveland
Daily Banner reports.
The four women were identified as Wendy Betts, of Winter
Springs, Fla.; Donna Reuter, West Palm Beach, Fla.; Tiffany
Kelly, Fort Pierce, Fla.; and Katherine Corbett, Parkland, Fla.
The suit alleges "unconscionable, usurious interest rates for
consumer loans through systematic and flagrant violations of
state consumer protection laws. Defendant, inter alia,
illegally collected payment of monies from Plaintiffs and
members of the class by directly and indirectly falsely
threatening to pursue collection under Florida bad check laws,"
the Cleveland Daily Banner reported.
The suit makes 12 allegations against Mr. McKenzie by obtaining
money and extending, renewing and refinancing credit to the four
women and others similarly situated, reports the Cleveland Daily
Banner.
The women are seeking litigation expenses and costs and
attorneys' fees, according to the Cleveland Daily Banner report.
UBS AG: Oregon Seeks $25M Recovery in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Oregon is suing UBS AG to recover more than $25
million the Public Employees Retirement Fund lost in the stock
market following revelations of bank wrongdoing, Attorney
General John Kroger announced, Dennis Thompson, Jr. of The
Statesman Journal reports.
A.G. Kroger's office filed a motion on March 31, 2009 in New
York to make the state a co-lead plaintiff in a securities fraud
class-action case already underway against UBS, the world's
largest private bank, headquartered in Zurich. PERS held a
large amount of UBS stock and lost millions when the public
learned of the bank's participation in an international tax
evasion scheme, according to the state's lawsuit.
"We're talking about some substantial losses that occurred after
they began revealing what they'd been up to," James Sinks, a
spokesman for the Oregon State Treasurer told The Statesman
Journal.
UBS also is accused in the lawsuit of not truthfully disclosing
its participation in the subprime mortgage market, reports The
Statesman Journal.
The company entered into a settlement in February with the U.S.
government to head off a likely indictment. It confessed that
it had funneled assets from thousands of wealthy Americans out
of the U.S. UBS paid $780 million to settle the case.
The Statesman Journal reported that the Internal Revenue Service
is trying to force the bank to disclose the names of as many as
52,000 wealthy Americans suspected of using the bank to evade
taxes.
Stock in UBS traded above $66 in 2007, but the price began to
drop in 2008 as the bank's ethical lapses were made public. The
stock closed at $9.89 Wednesday, according to The Statesman
Journal report.
UNITED STATES: ICE Sued For Holding Detainees in Calif. Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
A team of legal organizations announced on April 2, 2009
that they are suing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agency in federal district court for detaining immigrants in
egregious, unsanitary conditions in a downtown Los Angeles
facility without soap, drinking water, toothpaste, toothbrushes,
sanitary napkins, changes of clothing or showers.
The lawsuit - filed by the American Civil Liberties Union
of Southern California, the National Immigration Law Center, and
the law firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP - also
charges that the unsanitary conditions have led ICE to deprive
immigrants of due-process rights such as access to mail or
attorneys while in detention.
The facility, known as "B-18," was intended to temporarily
house detainees for no more than 12 hours. But in a perverse
distortion of its original purpose, immigration officials have
kept detainees in this basement facility for weeks by shuttling
them to local jails in the evening and on weekends, and
returning them to the facility the next business day.
Under these intolerable conditions, immigration officials
often fail to notify detainees that they have the right to
obtain release on bond while their cases remain pending.
Meanwhile, immigration officials deny detainees any mail
correspondence, writing materials or access to other materials
that would enable them to defend themselves - all of which are
required by law.
"It's shameful that immigration officers are treating
detainees like animals, apparently because the immigration
bureaucracy cannot seem to send detainees to the right place,"
said Ahilan Arulanantham, ACLU/SC director of immigrant rights
and national security. "Officers routinely crowd detainees into
dirty cells under grossly unsanitary conditions. They then deny
them access to basic constitutional necessities like the use of
the mail, making it impossible for them to defend themselves."
"There is no good reason why authorities cannot simply send
the detainees to the right place and release those who are
eligible for bond, rather than shuttling them back and forth for
days or weeks on end. The B-18 fiasco is yet another example of
how our immigration detention system has completely broken
down," Arulanantham added.
The lawsuit also contends that the conditions at issue
violate an order from a federal court in Los Angeles in another
case which involved similarly egregious abuses.
"The shell game officials are playing with human lives has
left detainees without the ability to access basic services that
any detention center must provide. Detainees at B-18 have no
access to outdoor recreation and cannot send or receive mail,
even for legal purposes," said Karen Tumlin, a staff attorney
with the National Immigration Law Center. "They cannot make
private phone calls to attorneys and have no ability to learn
their rights because officials deny them access to a law library
and create barriers to their access to counsel."
"The plain fact is that B-18 was never intended to be used
as a detention facility," Tumlin continued. "The facility fails
on every level to house detainees in a way that comports with
basic notions of dignity. B-18 does not provide soap or a
change of clothes to detainees and routinely denies menstruating
women sanitary napkins. Detention under such conditions is not
only unlawful, but downright cruel." While in B-18, detainees
are crowded into a cell with as many as 50 other people. In the
cell, there is a single phone, a bench and one or two exposed
toilets, but no soap or drinking water. Detainees are often
forced to sleep on the floor. Menstruating women who ask for
sanitary napkins are routinely ignored. And there is no access
to medical attention. On some occasions, it has taken ICE
officials more than a day to fix a clogged toilet.
Despite these heinous conditions, there is no mechanism for
detainees to lodge a complaint.
According to Toliver Besson, a partner at Paul Hastings,
the lawsuit gives the new administration of President Barack
Obama a way to demonstrate its commitment to immigrants' rights.
"The Obama administration has indicated that it wants all
immigrant detention facilities to be operated in a clean, safe
and constitutional manner. B-18 fails miserably to meet this
standard, but the administration's response to this lawsuit is
an opportunity to rectify this injustice and show that it is
moving in a new direction," Besson said.
The National ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project also serves as
co-counsel in the case.
For more details, visit:
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/detention/39271prs20090402.html
New Securities Fraud Cases
REGIONS FINANCING: Stull Stull Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers and acquirers
of 8.875% Trust Preferred Securities of Regions Financing
Capital Trust III (NYSE: RF-PZ) pursuant or traceable to a
materially false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2008 offering of
the Securities.
The complaint charges Regions Corp., certain of its
officers and directors, its auditor, and the underwriters of the
Offering with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.
Regions Corp. provides consumer and commercial banking,
trust, securities brokerage, mortgage and insurance products and
services.
The complaint alleges that in April of 2008, Regions Corp.
consummated the Offering pursuant to a false and misleading
Registration Statement, selling 13.8 million shares of the
Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of $345 million. The
Registration Statement incorporated Region Corp.'s financial
results for 2007. On January 20, 2009, Regions Corp. issued a
press release announcing a loss for the quarter and year ended
December 31, 2008, including a loss for the quarter ended
December 2008 of $9.01 per diluted share, which was "largely
driven by a $6 billion non-cash charge for impairment of
goodwill." As a result of that disclosure, the price of the
Securities declined significantly.
According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statement were:
-- Regions Corp. failed to properly record provisions for
loan losses;
-- the Company failed to properly account for impaired
assets;
-- the Company failed to properly account for goodwill;
-- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
prevent it from improperly recording provisions for
loan losses, improperly accounting for impaired
assets, and improperly accounting for goodwill; and
-- the Company was not as well capitalized as
represented.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers or acquirers of the Securities pursuant or traceable
to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the
Offering.
For more details, contact:
Aaron Brody, Esq.
Stull, Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 1-800-337-4983
Fax: 212/490-2022
e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
Web site: http://www.ssbny.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, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2009. 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 * * *