/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090520.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 98 Headlines ABN AMRO: Notification Program Begins for $9.6M Suit Settlement ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in California AMERICAN EXPRESS: Consolidated Merchants' Suit Pending in N.Y. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Customer Suits Over Insurance Billing Pending AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Baydale" Securities Suit in New York AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Homa" Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Ads on Remand APPLE INC: Judge Grants Judgment Request in iTunes-iPod Lawsuit ASRM & SART: Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Egg-Sharing Dismissed AT&T CORP: Supreme Court Favors Firm in Pregnancy Leave Appeal BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit For "Fixing" Interest Rates, Prices COMCAST CORP: Faces W.Va. Litigation Over "Tying" of Cable Boxes GENERAL MILLS: Faces Lawsuit Over False Claims About Cheerios JEWELRY TELEVISION: Former Exec Files Wrongful Termination Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Carcinogen Content JUNIPER NETWORKS: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal Motion by Ex-GC PHILIP MORRIS: Calif. Supreme Court Reinstates Cigarette Lawsuit SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeal to Certification of N.J. Suit Pending SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Suits by Third-Party Payors SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Suits Related to Merck Merger Transaction SCHERING-PLOUGH: June 1 Hearing Set for $165M Suit Settlement SCHERING-PLOUGH: No Ruling Yet on Recommendation in K-DUR Suits SCHERING-PLOUGH: VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Suits Still Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia TOYS "R" US: Pa. Judge Issues Ruling in Price-Fixing Litigation New Securities Fraud Cases AKEENA SOLAR: Scott+Scott LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit ********* ABN AMRO: Notification Program Begins for $9.6M Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A notification program began on May 18, 2009 as ordered by the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois to alert those who purchased certain Callable CDs before March 9, 2008 about a proposed $9.6 million settlement involving a case filed against ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (also known as ABN AMRO Holding N.V.); ABN AMRO North America, Inc.; LaSalle Bank, N.A.; Standard Federal Bank; and European America Bank. This lawsuit claims that the Defendants, prior to March 9, 2008, did not adequately disclose the risks associated with callable certificates of deposit ("Callable CDs") sold by brokers (including brokers affiliated with a bank or financial institution). Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants did not adequately inform the purchasers of Callable CDs that they might suffer losses if they were sold prior to call or maturity, or otherwise failed to make full and accurate disclosure regarding material aspects of those CDs prior to purchase. The settlement does not mean that any law was broken or that the Defendants did anything wrong. The Defendants deny all legal claims in this case. The Class includes anyone (including institutional investors) who bought a Callable CD at the full principal amount before March 9, 2008 from a broker (including brokers affiliated with a bank or financial institution) and either: -- lost money when they sold their Callable CD prior to call or maturity for less than the purchase price; or -- unsuccessfully attempted to sell or redeem the Callable CD for full principal amount prior to maturity. Only CDs issued, distributed or underwritten by any of the Defendants are included in the settlement. Class members can go to http://www.CallableCDclass.comand search the CD database using the CD CUSIP number, issuer, issue date, interest rate or original maturity date, or call 1-800-754-3341 to find out if their CD is included in the settlement. Notices informing Class members about their legal rights are scheduled to appear in national newspaper supplements and a consumer publication leading up to a hearing on October 26, 2009, when the Court will consider whether to grant final approval to the settlement. The Court has appointed the law firms of Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC of Charleston, SC and Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel, & Burns, LLP of Tampa, FL to represent the Class as "Class Counsel." Those affected by the settlement can send in a claim form to ask for payment, or they can ask to be excluded from, or object to, the settlement. Claim forms must be postmarked no later than January 8, 2010. The deadline for exclusions and objections is August 24, 2009. A toll-free number, 1-800-754-3341, has been established in this case (called Dolen v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V., No. 01-L-454), along with a website, http://www.CallableCDclass.com,where notices, claim forms, a searchable database of Callable CDs, the settlement agreement, and the Court's preliminary approval order may be obtained. Those affected may also write to Callable CD Settlement, PO Box 427, Birmingham, AL 35201-0427. ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund II, on March 31, 2009, filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common shares of certain mutual funds offered by Allianz Global Investors Fund Management LLC against the Funds' investment manager, Allianz Global Investors Fund Management LLC and the Funds' sub-adviser, Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and certain of its officers and/or trustees over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Funds' investment manager, Allianz Global Investors Fund Management LLC and the Funds' sub-adviser, Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and certain of its officers and/or trustees violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the above stated periods, were as follows: The Funds lacked effective controls and hedges to minimize the risk of loss and risk of liquidity from auction rate securities ("ARS") which affected a large part of their portfolios, The Funds lacked effective internal controls to ensure that the Funds would remain in compliance with restrictions and limitations related to their investment portfolios and strategies, The extent of the Funds' liquidity risk due to the illiquid nature of a large portion of the Funds' portfolios, including ARS, was omitted; and The extent of the Funds' risk exposure to ARS was misstated. Covered by the lawsuit is anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the following common shares: PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund II between May 22, 2007 and December 1, 2008, PIMCO Municipal Income Fund II between May 22, 2007 and December 1, 2008, PIMCO Municipal Income Fund III between June 6, 2007 and December 1, 2008, PIMCO New York Municipal Income Fund III between June 6, 2007 and December 1, 2008, and/or PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund III between June 6, 2007 and December 1, 2008. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before May 29, 2009. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Consolidated Merchants' Suit Pending in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Co. continues to face a consolidated purported class-action lawsuit captioned, "In re American Express Merchants' Litigation," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The company has been named in a number of purported class-action suits in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between the company's charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws, including: (i) Cohen Rese Gallery et al. v. American Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (filed July 2003); (ii) Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (filed August 2003); (iii) DRF Jeweler Corp. v. American Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed December 2003); (iv) Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company et al., Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed December 2003); (v) Chez Noelle Restaurant v. American Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed January 2004); (vi) Mascari Enterprises d/b/a Sound Stations v. American Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed January 2004); (vii) Mims Restaurant v. American Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed February 2004); and (viii) The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed July 2004). The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. Upon motion to the Court by the company, the venue of the Cohen Rese and Italian Colors actions was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in December 2003. Each of the above-listed actions (except for Hayama) is now pending in the SDNY under the consolidated caption "In re American Express Merchants' Litigation." On April 30, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss all the actions filed prior to such date that were pending in the SDNY, and on March 15, 2006, such motion was granted, with the Court finding the claims of the plaintiffs to be subject to arbitration. Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its dismissal. That request was denied. The plaintiffs appealed the Court's arbitration ruling and on Jan. 30, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court. The parties have requested a conference with the District Court to discuss next steps in light of the Second Circuit's ruling. On April 17, 2009, the company filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an application for an extension of time to file a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court from the arbitration ruling of the Second Circuit. In addition, the company continues to request the California Superior Court hearing the Hayama action referenced above to stay that action. To date the Hayama action has been stayed. The company also filed a motion to dismiss the action filed by Marcus, which was denied in July 2005. On Oct. 1, 2007, Marcus filed a motion seeking certification of a class. The company has opposed Marcus' motion for class certification. Each of the company and Marcus have moved for summary judgment in their favor. A decision on the class certification motion and the summary judgment motions is pending, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is a global payments, network and travel company. The company has four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of the company include global card network services; charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and travel management services, among others. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Customer Suits Over Insurance Billing Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Co. continues to face putative class-action suits alleging violations of California and New York law by billing customers for flight and baggage insurance that they did not receive, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. In January 2006, in a matter captioned, "Hoffman, et al. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., No. 2001-02281," Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, the Court certified a class action against TRS. In a case management order dated April 8, 2008, the Court defined two classes as follows: (1) all persons who obtained American Express charge cards governed by New York law with billing addresses in California who purchased American Express' fee based travel related insurance plans from Sept. 6, 1995, through Feb. 12, 2008, and (2) all persons who obtained American Express charge cards governed by New York law with billing addresses in states other than California who purchased American Express' fee based travel related insurance plans from Sept. 6, 1995, through Feb. 12, 2008. The Court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify a class to pursue claims on behalf of persons who held American Express credit cards governed by Utah law. Plaintiffs allege that American Express violated California and New York law by allegedly billing customers for flight and baggage insurance that they did not receive. American Express filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the case be dismissed as a matter of law. The summary judgment motion was partially granted in July 2008, when the Court dismissed certain claims against American Express including claims for punitive damages. Certain other claims survived summary judgment. A trial on the remaining claims began in November 2008. The company prevailed in Phase 1 of that trial with the Court ruling that the contract between the company and its cardmembers was not ambiguous and that the company operated the air-flight and baggage insurance program consistent with the contract. On March 25, 2009, the Court entered a preliminary order in the company's favor in Phase 2 of the trial, finding that: (1) the contract is not unconscionable; (2) the company did not violate California consumer protection laws; and (3) the company did not violate New York consumer protection laws. The Court also awarded as-yet-to-be-determined costs to the company. In addition, a matter raising related allegations to those in the Hoffman case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. That matter, captioned, "Environment Law Enforcement Systems v. American Express et al.," has effectively been stayed pending the proceedings in the Hoffman action. Following the favorable March 25, 2009, ruling in Hoffman, the plaintiff in Environmental Law Enforcement Systems asked the Court to lift the stay. The company has opposed that request. On Oct. 30, 2008, a case making allegations similar to those raised in the Hoffman case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That matter, captioned, "Kass v. American Express Card Services, Inc., American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services," was filed as a putative class-action suit on behalf of American Express credit card holders. On March 11, 2009, the Kass Court entered an order granting the joint motion of the parties to stay the case, and the Court also administratively closed the case. American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is a global payments, network and travel company. The company has four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of the company include global card network services; charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and travel management services, among others. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Baydale" Securities Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action suit, captioned, "Baydale v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel Henry" is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Feb. 20, 2009, a putative class-action litigation captioned, "Brozovich v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel T. Henry," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection with certain alleged misstatements regarding the credit quality of the company's credit card customers. The purported class covered the period from March 1, 2007 to Nov. 12, 2008. The action sought unspecified damages and costs and fees. The Brozovich action was subsequently voluntarily dismissed. On March 27, 2009, a putative class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Baydale v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel Henry," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action makes similar allegations to those made in Brozovich, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is a global payments, network and travel company. The company has four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of the company include global card network services; charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and travel management services, among others. AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Homa" Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Ads on Remand -------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action suit captioned, "Homa v. American Express Company et al." has been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. In June 2006, a putative class-action suit captioned, "Homa v. American Express Company et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case alleges, generally, misleading and fraudulent advertising of the "tiered" "up to 5 percent" cash rebates with the Blue Cash card. The complaint initially sought certification of a nationwide class consisting of "all persons who applied for and received an American Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30, 2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate or rebates provided for in the offer." On Dec. 1, 2006, however, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint dropping the nationwide class claims and asserting claims only on behalf of New Jersey residents who "while so residing in New Jersey, applied for and received an American Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30, 2003 to the present." The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other unspecified relief that the Court deems appropriate. In May 2007, the Court granted the company's motion to compel individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on Feb. 24, 2009, the Third Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is a global payments, network and travel company. The company has four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services, U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial Services and Corporate & Other. The products and services of the company include global card network services; charge card and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and small business lending products; American Express travelers cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction processing; business expense management products and services; consumer travel services, and business travel and travel management services, among others. APPLE INC: Judge Grants Judgment Request in iTunes-iPod Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Inc. has won a round in an ongoing consolidated antitrust class-action suit with a federal judge ruling that the relationship between its iTunes music store and iPod products does not constitute illegal tying, Law360 reports. On May 15, 2009, Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Apple's request for a judgment on the pleadings, according to the Law360 report. ASRM & SART: Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Egg-Sharing Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by a bankrupt organization representing human egg donors who allege the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ARSM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) engaged in "egg-sharing" without the consent of donors, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove racketeering or anti- competitive conduct. In an order signed on May 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. AT&T CORP: Supreme Court Favors Firm in Pregnancy Leave Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of AT&T Corp. over a policy that lowers pension benefits for female workers who took pregnancy leave prior to 1979, when a federal pregnancy law was enacted, Mark H. Anderson of Dow Jones Newswires reports. On May 18, 2009, the justices, in a majority led by Justice David Souter, said the seniority system AT&T applies to its work force is protected by federal law "because the seniority system run by AT&T is bona fide" despite the quirk created by 1970s changes in federal protections for pregnant workers, reports Dow Jones Newswires. According to Justice Souter, "Bona fide seniority systems allow, among other things for predictable financial consequences both for the employer who pays the bill and for the employee who gets the benefit," Dow Jones Newswires reported. At issue in the case -- captioned, "AT&T v. Hulteen, 07-543," -- was whether its seniority system, which omits pregnancy leave taken by women prior to 1979, is a violation of the pregnancy discrimination law. The class-action lawsuit against AT&T could affect workers at other predecessors of the Bell telephone system, Dow Jones Newswires reports. The Supreme Court ruling overturned a lower court decision that went against the company, according to the Dow Jones Newswires report. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit For "Fixing" Interest Rates, Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America is facing a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority and the Central Bucks School District, WFMZ-TV Online reports. The bank is one of more than 30 financial institutions named in the suit, which states that the companies engaged in anti- competitive practices by conspiring to fix interest rates and prices on investments the school district and the authority made, reports WFMZ-TV Online. In April, a federal judge dismissed the charge against most of the financial institutions. Bank of America is still listed, according to the WFMZ-TV Online report. COMCAST CORP: Faces W.Va. Litigation Over "Tying" of Cable Boxes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Comcast Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the cable company's requirement of customers to pay a separate fee for a cable box is illegal, Justin Anderson of The West Virginia Record reports. The suit was filed on April 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia by Gordon Ramey, II against Comcast Corp., Comcast Holdings Corp., Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc. Captioned, "Ramey v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 3:2009-cv- 00353," the litigation centers around the cable boxes that Comcast rents out to its digital cable and premium cable customers for between $10 and $15 per month in addition to the monthly cable bill, according to The West Virginia Record report. Mr. Ramey's lawsuit alleges this practice constitutes an illegal "tying arrangement" which restrains trade against state and federal laws. "Tying" refers to when a company offers a service that can only be used by obtaining a separate product made by the same company that is providing the initial service, The West Virginia Record reported. According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The West Virginia Record, "Comcast has a monopoly in areas in which it provides cable television services to persons located in each of the states in which Comcast provides cable services, or otherwise has sufficient market power to appreciable restrain free competition." Mr. Ramey alleges that Comcast tells its customers that other cable boxes aren't compatible with the cable signal "even though cable boxes are available on the open market that would readily permit members of the class to view" the cable offered by Comcast, reports The West Virginia Record. He also alleges that Comcast buys the cable boxes at a fixed and low cost from manufacturers like Scientific Atlanta and Motorola and then rents them out to customers, The West Virginia Record reports. GENERAL MILLS: Faces Lawsuit Over False Claims About Cheerios ------------------------------------------------------------- General Mills, Inc. is facing a purported class-action suit that accuses the company of pushing Cheerios with false claims that it will lower cholesterol and prevent heart attacks, the Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on May 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California by Charity E. Huey, who is represented in the matter by Harold Hewell, Esq., of San Diego, Howard Rubinstein, Esq., of Aspen, Colo., and Joe Whatley, Jr., Esq., with Whatley, Drake & Kallas of New York, N.Y. It claims that the U.S. FDA warned General Mills in a May 5 letter that the label on its Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, according to the Courthouse News Service report. According to the complaint, the FDA specifically objected to these claims on the label: "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks"; and "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is ... clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol," the Courthouse News Service reported. The plaintiffs claims that the label for regular Cheerios makes similar claims, but boasts of "10% in one month!", reports the Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d0c JEWELRY TELEVISION: Former Exec Files Wrongful Termination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A former Jewelry Television executive filed a purporetd class- action lawsuit against Knoxville-based home shopping network for wrongful termination and age discrimination, alleging a "scheme" to get rid of employees with expensive health care costs, Carly Harrington of The Knoxville News Sentinel reports. The suit was filed on May 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption, "Gordon v. America's Collectibles Network et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv- 00206." Others named as defendants in the lawsuit include: America's Collectibles Network, Multimedia Commerce Group, Inc., can Financing, Inc., ACN Network, Inc., ACN Leasing, Inc., The Gem Store, Inc., JTV.Com Internet Company, BBJ Holdings, Inc., XS Goods, Inc., Kevin Muir, Timothy B. Matthews, F. Robert Hall, William C. Kouns, Gerald D Sisk, Charles A Wagner, Crawford Wagner, Warren Neal, Gregory West, Christopher West, Wayne Lambert, David Boeschenstein, Steven Roth, Catherine Colcotronis, Clay Davis, Harris Bagley, Brent Butcher, James Thome, William Lane, Donna Burns, Bradley Adams, Wyndle Kingsmore, and Timothy Engle. According to the complaint, the plaintiff, Steve Gordon, a company vice president who oversaw procurement, logistics, travel and the retail store Gemstore, was terminated as part of a companywide reduction in work force last May, reports The Knoxville News Sentinel. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, maintains that Jewelry Television sought to eliminate employees who threatened the company's objective of an independent public offering by increasing health insurance or workers' compensation premiums, according to The Knoxville News Sentinel report. Mr. Gordon, who was hired by Jewelry Television in 2004, was diagnosed with cancer in 2005. "It is our contention that he, amongst others, were selected to improve their loss exposure in health and workmans' compensation areas," according to Mr. Gordon's attorney M.J. Hoover, III, who noted that Jewelry Television's insurance plan is self-funded, The Knoxville News Sentinel reports. The suit alleges the company targeted employees for termination through a reduction in work force, or "a pretextual guise for discriminatory conduct." It seeks $10 million in damages and lost pay as well as compensatory damages that includes expenses related to Mr. Gordon's cancer treatment, The Knoxville News Sentinel reported. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d0d JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Carcinogen Content ------------------------------------------------------------- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., on May 15, 2009, filed a class- action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against several manufacturers of children's bath and personal care products which contain the carcinogenic ingredients formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane. Plaintiffs are purchasers of the following brand name products, among others: -- Johnson's Baby Shampoo * (manufactured by Johnson & Johnson) -- Suave Kids 2-in-1 Shampoo * (manufactured by Helene Curtis) -- Grins & Giggles Milk & Honey Baby Wash * (manufactured by Gerber) -- Dora the Explorer Bubble Bath * (manufactured by MZB Personal Care) -- Pampers Kandoo Foaming Handsoap * (manufactured by Proctor & Gamble) -- Equate Tearless Baby Wash * (manufactured by Wal-Mart) The Complaint alleges that the Defendants manufactured, distributed, marketed, tested and/or sold children's bath and personal care products containing formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane, which are known toxic and carcinogenic agents linked to cancer and skin allergies. Although the companies manufacturing and marketing these products call them "gentle" and "pure," dozens of top-selling children's bath and personal care products are contaminated with the cancer-causing chemicals formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane according to the March 2009 Campaign for Safe Cosmetics report, "No More Toxic Tub." According to Attorney Lynn Sarko, "Numerous parents have contacted us who are justifiably concerned and alarmed to learn that children's shampoo and other products manufactured by reputable manufacturers contained toxic ingredients when safe alternatives exist." For more details, contact: Mary Garner, Paralegal Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Phone: 800/776-6044 e-mail: productliability@kellerrohrback.com Web site: http://www.krclassaction.com JUNIPER NETWORKS: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal Motion by Ex-GC --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected a motion to dismiss a class- action lawsuit against the former general counsel of Juniper Networks Inc., who is accused of deceiving the public to orchestrate and conceal a $900 million backdating scheme, Law360 reports. On May 15, 2009, Judge Ware denied the motion to dismiss filed by lawyers for the ex-general counsel of the company, according to the Law360 report. PHILIP MORRIS: Calif. Supreme Court Reinstates Cigarette Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court ruled that a long-running class- action lawsuit against major cigarette makers can go ahead, after being effectively halted by a lower court, Bill Rigby of Reuters reports. The suit, originally brought in 1997, alleges that major tobacco companies, industry groups and a public relations firm engaged in a "decades-long campaign of deceptive advertising and misleading statements" about cigarettes, addiction, and disease, according to the Reuters report. The defendants include Altria Group, Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit; Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Lorillard, Inc.; and public relations firm Hill and Knowlton Inc, owned by WPP Plc, Reuters reported. Under a change in California law in 2004, designed to curb excessive class-action lawsuits against corporations, the state made it more difficult to form a class-action suit, by demanding that each member of the suit demonstrate personal damage or loss of money caused by the alleged fraud, reports Reuters. In light of the new law, state's Court of Appeal backed the defendants' demand to decertify the class-action lawsuit, which would force each plaintiff to file separate lawsuits. That ruling greatly diminished the impact of the legal action. However, the Supreme Court reversed that decision on a majority 4-3 verdict, which allows the class-action suit to proceed, Reuters reports. In an May 18, 2009 ruling, the court stated, "We conclude that standing requirements are applicable only to the class representatives, and not all absent class members." In essence the court states that only a handful of plaintiffs leading the suit must show proof of damage and deception, not all plaintiffs in the suit, according to the Reuters report. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeal to Certification of N.J. Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp.'s appeal to the class certification decision in a remanded putative class-action complaint for breach of fiduciary duties under the Company's Employee Savings Plan (Plan) is pending before the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 31, 2003, the Company was served with a putative class- action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Schering-Plough, retired Chairman, CEO and President Richard Jay Kogan, its Plan administrator, several current and former directors, and certain former corporate officers breached their fiduciary obligations to certain participants in the Plan. The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly suffered by the Plan. The complaint was dismissed on June 29, 2004. The plaintiffs appealed. On Aug. 19, 2005 , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the dismissal by the District Court. The matter has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. On Sept. 30, 2008, the District Court entered an order granting in part, and denying in part, the named putative class representative's motion for class certification. Schering-Plough then petitioned the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for leave to appeal the class certification decision. Schering-Plough's petition was granted on Dec. 10, 2008, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save and improve lives around the world. The company applies its research-and-development platform to human prescription and consumer products as well as to animal health products. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Suits by Third-Party Payors -------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp. continues to face several purported class- action lawsuits filed on behalf of third-party payors. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, Schering-Plough made cash payments of US$435 million for the settlement of the investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts involving certain of the Company's sales, marketing and clinical trial practices and programs, cash payments of US$9 million of employee termination costs related to the 2006 manufacturing streamlining and US$6 million related to integration planning. Several purported class action litigations were filed following the announcement of the settlement of the Massachusetts Investigation. The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages on behalf of third- party payors resulting from the allegations of off-label promotion and improper payments to physicians that were at issue in the Massachusetts Investigation. No further developments in the cases were reported in the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save and improve lives around the world. The company applies its research-and-development platform to human prescription and consumer products as well as to animal health products. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Suits Related to Merck Merger Transaction ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp. faces putative class action lawsuits filed on behalf of the company's shareholders relating to the merger agreement with Merck & Co., Inc., according to its May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Since the announcement of the merger agreement with Merck, a number of putative class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the shareholders of Schering-Plough. The complaints name as defendants Schering-Plough, its directors, and in certain cases, Merck and Schering-Plough subsidiaries, Blue, Inc. and Purple, Inc. The complaints variously allege, among other things, that Schering-Plough's directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger of Schering-Plough with Merck without taking steps to ensure that shareholders would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances, and that Schering-Plough and, in certain complaints, Merck aided and abetted the directors' breaches of duty. The complaints seek, among other things, class action status, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the proposed transaction, rescission of the transaction if it is consummated, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save and improve lives around the world. The company applies its research-and-development platform to human prescription and consumer products as well as to animal health products. SCHERING-PLOUGH: June 1 Hearing Set for $165M Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold a fairness hearing at 2:00 p.m. on June 1, 2009 for the proposed $165,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:01-cv-829." The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, located at the Frank R. Lautenberg U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Bldg., 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101 in the Courtroom of the Honorable Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J. Following Schering-Plough's announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had been conducting inspections of its manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain named officers (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2008). These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material information and making material misstatements. Specifically, they allege that Schering-Plough failed to disclose an alleged serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and they allege that the Company failed to disclose the alleged depth and severity of its manufacturing issues. These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001, purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of Schering-Plough stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001. The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class. The Court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003. Notice of pendency of the class action was sent to members of that class in July 2007. On Feb. 18, 2009, the Court signed an order preliminarily approving a settlement agreement. The proposed settlement agreement is scheduled to be presented for final approval at a hearing on June 1, 2009, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. For more details, contact: In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 1-877-451-2127 Web site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/ SCHERING-PLOUGH: No Ruling Yet on Recommendation in K-DUR Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey judge has yet to rule on a recommendation to dismiss several purported antitrust class-action suits filed before the federal and state courts against Schering-Plough Corp. with regards to the drug K- DUR. Schering-Plough Corp. had settled patent litigation with Upsher- Smith, Inc. and ESI Lederle, Inc. relating to generic versions of K-DUR, the company's long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications. Following the commencement of an Federal Trade Commission administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from those settlements, which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's favor, alleged class action suits were filed in federal and state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K- DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle. These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. These suits seek unspecified damages. In February 2009, a special master recommended that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismiss the class- action lawsuits on summary judgment. The U.S. District Court judge has not yet ruled on the recommendation, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save and improve lives around the world. The company applies its research-and-development platform to human prescription and consumer products as well as to animal health products. SCHERING-PLOUGH: VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE Suits Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp. is still facing several purported class- action suits in connection with the sale and promotion of the VYTORIN, ZETIA, and ENHANCE products, according to its May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Since mid-January 2008, Schering-Plough has become aware of or been served with litigation, including: -- civil class-action lawsuits alleging common law and state consumer fraud claims in connection with Schering-Plough's sale and promotion of the Merck & Co., Inc./Schering-Plough joint-venture products' VYTORIN and ZETIA; -- several putative shareholder securities class action lawsuits (where several officers are also named defendants) alleging false and misleading statements and omissions by Schering-Plough and its representatives related to the timing of disclosures concerning the ENHANCE results, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; -- a putative shareholder securities class action lawsuit (where several officers and directors are also named), alleging material misstatements and omissions related to the ENHANCE results in the offering documents in connection with Schering- Plough's 2007 securities offerings, allegedly in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, including Section 11; -- several putative class action suits alleging that Schering-Plough and certain officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and seeking damages in the amount of losses allegedly suffered by the Plans; -- a Shareholder Derivative Action alleging that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary obligations relating to the timing of the release of the ENHANCE results; and -- a letter on behalf of a single shareholder requesting that the Board of Directors investigate the allegations in the litigation and, if warranted, bring any appropriate legal action on behalf of Schering-Plough. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is an innovation-driven, science-centered global health care company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough creates therapies that help save and improve lives around the world. The company applies its research-and-development platform to human prescription and consumer products as well as to animal health products. SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ An investor in SunTrust Banks, Inc. (Public, NYSE:STI) Capital IX 7.875% Trust preferred shares has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of those who acquired SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities issued SunTrust Banks in its February 2008 public offering against SunTrust Banks, Inc. over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that SunTrust Banks, Inc. and certain of its top officials and underwriters violated the Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, so the lawsuit, on February 27, 2008, SunTrust filed a prospectus supplement to a shelf registration statement/prospectus dated October 18, 2006, pursuant to which SunTrust sold 27.6 million units of the Trust Preferred Securities to the public at $25 per unit, for proceeds of approximately $690 million and that the representations made in this registration statement/prospectus were materially false and misleading. Then on January 22, 2009, SunTrust announced a significant increase in its provision for loan losses along with the release of its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2008. At that time, SunTrust Banks reported its first quarterly loss in two decades and cut its quarterly dividend from $0.54 to $0.10 per share. When this news became public, the price of the Trust Preferred Securities began to decline. SunTrust Banks, Inc. is a diversified financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate clients. TOYS "R" US: Pa. Judge Issues Ruling in Price-Fixing Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anita Brody of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that a putative price-fixing class-action suit against retail giant Toys "R" Us Inc. and several makers of high-end baby products will proceed with several small classes, not one big class, Law360 reports. The ruling was issued on May 14, 2009, according to the Law360 report. New Securities Fraud Cases AKEENA SOLAR: Scott+Scott LLP Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott LLP, on May 18, 2009, filed a class action complaint against Akeena Solar, Inc. and certain of the Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing Akeena common stock during the period beginning December 26, 2007 through March 13, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Akeena, a designer and marketer of solar power systems, made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's sales, financial performance and condition. After repeated glowing announcements by Akeena to its investors touting the strength of demand for the Company's products, its large sales "backlog" and transparency into its financial projections and reporting, the Company surprised the market in a series of negative disclosures beginning on January 16, 2008. First, Akeena revealed that the credit-line increase announced on December 26, 2007, touted as a vote of confidence in the Company, actually contained a cash collateral requirement equaling the amount of the extension. The Company then reported that its 4Q 2007 sales had significantly missed the sales "backlog" Akeena confirmed existed at the end of its 3Q 2007. At the end of the Class Period, on March 13, 2008, Akeena finally revealed that actual losses incurred in its 4Q 2007, which had already ended on December 31, 2007, were significantly higher than investors had been led to expect. Its newly- appointed Chief Financial Officer also revealed that his predecessor had been booking as "backlog" every new installation contract, regardless of whether the customer intended to take delivery within six months (as Akeena's "backlog" had previously been defined) or the status of the customer's financing. As the market reacted to these disclosures, Akeena's common stock, which had traded as high as $16.80 on January 7, 2008, fell precipitously, closing at $6.15 per share on March 13, 2008. The complaint alleges the several statements made by Akeena to investors were materially false or misleading. The statements were false or misleading because, when they were made the Company knew that: -- the previously reported backlog number was unreliable; -- its gross profit margins were declining; -- its net losses were dramatically increasing and -- the $17.5 million "increase" in Akeena's credit line announced on December 26, 2007 was merely a cash collateralization agreement which simply increased the Company's restricted cash. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 17, 2009. For more details, contact: Scott + Scott LLP Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537 e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.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 * * *