/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090521.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 21, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 99 Headlines AKEENA SOLAR: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in California ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 31 Hearing Set For HDCP Suit Settlement COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Denies Dismissal Bid v. MDL GREAT SOUTHERN: Faces AU$30M Investor Litigation in Australia OLIVE GARDEN: Settles Ill. Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations IMMUCOR INC: Faces N.J. Price-Fixing Lawsuit Over Blood Reagents INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Canadian Files Rape Suit in California LINCARE INC: California Appellate Court Revives Overtime Lawsuit MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Ariz. Lawsuit NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: June 23 Hearing Set For Ohio Settlement NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Faces Policyholders' Litigation in Ohio NAVISITE INC: Md. Court Give Final OK to $1.67M Suit Settlement PEP BOYS: July 17, 2009 Hearing Set for "Berger" Suit Settlement POPULAR INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Litigation in P.R. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Certiorari Granted in "Romero" Suit in Feb. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery Ongoing in Suit for FLSA Violations REYNOLDS AMERICAN: ETS Suit Still Stayed Pending "Scott" Appeal REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Faces Amended Complaint in "Cleary" Action REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in "Jones" Suit in Mo. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Smith" Price Fixing Suit Still in Discovery REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Cigarette Ad SEQUENOM INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Judge Orders Revision of Investors' Lawsuit YTB INT'L: June 1 Hearing Set For Ill. Suit by Former Customers New Securities Fraud Cases NORTEL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Lawsuit v. Former Execs SEQUENOM INC: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing ********* AKEENA SOLAR: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in Akeena Solar, Inc. shares, on May 18, 2009, filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Akeena Solar, Inc. over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Akeena Solar, Inc. and certain of its officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing between December 26, 2007 and March 13, 2008 materially false and misleading statements regarding Akeena Solar's sales, financial performance and condition. Then Akeena Solar made a series of negative disclosures to the market, so the lawsuit: Akeena revealed that the credit-line increase announced on Dec. 26, 2007, contained a cash collateral requirement equaling the amount of the extension. Then Akeena Solar reported that its 4Q 2007 sales had significantly missed the sales "backlog" Akeena confirmed existed at the end of its 3Q 2007. And then on March 13, 2008, Akeena finally revealed that actual losses incurred in its 4Q 2007, which had already ended on Dec. 31, 2007, were significantly higher. 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 or the status of the customer's financing. As a result of these disclosures, Akeena's common stock, which had traded as high as $16.80 on Jan. 7, 2008, fell to $6.15 per share on March 13, 2008. ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 31 Hearing Set For HDCP Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 31, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re ATI Tech. HDCP Litigation, Case No. 5:06-CV-01303-JW." The suit was filed against ATI Technologies, Inc. (now known as ATI Technologies ULC), ATI Technologies Systems Corp., ATI Research Silicon Valley Inc., and ATI Research, Inc. The plaintiffs claim that certain graphics cards were marketed as "HDCP ready," "HDCP compliant," or "HDCP capable," or otherwise conforming to High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) specifications for the transmission of HDCP content, when they were not. Initially, on February and March 2006, two consumer class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against ATI and three of its subsidiaries (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2009). The complaint allege that ATI had misrepresented its graphics cards as being "HDCP ready" and on that basis alleged violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. On April 18, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the two actions. On June 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, alleging violations of California's consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. On June 21, 2006, a third consumer class-action lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in May 2006, alleging claims that are substantially the same was transferred to the Northern District of California. On July 31, 2006, that case was also consolidated into the consolidated action pending in the Northern District of California, according to a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 9, 2009 by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., the parent company of ATI Technologies, Inc. The settlement covers anyone who -- while residing in the United States -- purchased for their own personal use and not for resale an ATI graphics card (that means a card built by or for ATI, not by or for another company such as Asus, Diamond, Gigabyte, Palit, Sapphire, or VisionTek) from one of the following series: Radeon(R) 9550; Radeon(R) 9800; Radeon(R) x700; Radeon(R) x800; Radeon(R) x850; Radeon(R) x1300; Radeon(R) x1600; Radeon(R) x1800; Radeon(R) x1900; All-in-Wonder(R) 9800; All-in-Wonder(R) 2006; All-in-Wonder(R) x600; All-in-Wonder(R) x800; All-in-Wonder(R) x1800; All-in-Wonder(R) x1900; or any FireGL(R) or FireMV(R) series of graphics cards. Those who will qaulify for the settlement must have made their purchase during the period from Jan. 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006. For more details, contact: ATI HDCP Notice and Claims Administrator P.O. Box 6177 Novato, CA 94948-6177 Phone: 1-888-309-9567 Web site: http://www.aticlassaction.com/ KamberEdelson, LLC 350 North LaSalle Street Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 589-6370 Fax: (312) 589-6378 Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com - and - Parisi & Havens LLP 15233 Valleyheart Drive Sherman Oaks, California 91403 Phone: (818) 990-1299 Fax: (818) 501-7852 Web site: http://www.parisihavens.com/ COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Denies Dismissal Bid v. MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation accusing Countrywide Financial Corp. of steering borrowers to subprime mortgages in order to maximize profits, defrauding borrowers and violating state competition law, has mostly refused to dismiss a consolidated class-action complaint against the lender, the Law360 reports. On May 18, 2009, Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied most of Countrywide's partial motion to dismiss the complaint, according to the Law360 report. GREAT SOUTHERN: Faces AU$30M Investor Litigation in Australia ------------------------------------------------------------- Great Southern Ltd., the managed investment scheme company that recently collapsed is facing a potential AU$30 million class- action lawsuit, according to a Stock & Land report. According to The Australian Financial Review, Dennis & Company is representing 600 investors who invested an average of $50,000 in one of Great Southern's cattle schemes between 2006 and 2007. Company principal Bruce Dennis told AFR that the investors had had their interests compulsorily acquired and transferred into shares. At the same time, loans, many of which were provided by Great Southern Finance, were called in. "These investors are stuck with loans and no underlying assets," Mr. Dennis tells AFR. Mr. Dennis stated that the potential lawsuit revolved around representations by Great Southern, which told investors it had the "financial wherewithal to keep the projects going" but at the same time knew it had to convert the project into shares to stay in business. OLIVE GARDEN: Settles Ill. Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Olive Garden, a restaurant concept owned and operated by Darden Restaurants, Inc., is settling a federal lawsuit over credit card privacy, Sandra Pedicini of The Associated Press reports. The settlement has already received preliminary approval from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and a final hearing is set for July, according to the AP report. It stems from a Class-action lawsuit filed in 2007, which accused Olive Garden of printing the last six digits of customers' credit card numbers on receipts. The limit under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act is five, reports The Associated Press. The lead plaintiff in the case was Mary Dudzienski of Illinois, who was represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. Diners who used debit or credit cards between Dec. 4, 2006, and Aug. 10, 2007, are eligible for the settlement, The Associated Press reported. For more details, contact: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. Chicago, Illinois Phone: 1-866-890-4862 or (312) 440-0020 Fax: (312) 440-4180 Web site: http://www.attorneyzim.com/ IMMUCOR INC: Faces N.J. Price-Fixing Lawsuit Over Blood Reagents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. are facing a purported class- action lawsuit that accuses them of conspiring to fix prices on blood reagents and related medical equipment, The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit, entitled, "Warren General Hospital, et al. v. Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:33-av-00001," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 18, 2009. A reagent is a substance used to detect, measure, examine or produce other substances. The defendants sell "hundreds of millions of dollars worth of blood reagents" every year in the United States, according to the Courthouse News Service report. The class period began on Jan. 1, 2000, according to the complaint, which was filed by Lisa Rodriguez, Esq. of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, reports the Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d12 For more details, contact: Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. (lisa@trrlaw.com) Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC 258 Kings Highway East Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: 856.795.9002 Fax: 856.795.9887 INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Canadian Files Rape Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- International Creative Management (ICM) faces a purported class- action lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, according to celebrity website TMZ.com. Claire Robinson, the former Miss British Columbia 2004, claims in her lawsuit that the talent agency promised her stardom but instead -- she says she became the victim of a sexual assault. Ms. Robinson, who suing for unspecified damages, claims that ICM "hip-pocketed" her, a term used when a senior agent takes an inexperienced actress without credits under his wing. The suit claims the agency "sexually exploited the 'hip-pocketed' actresses" they brought in, TMZ reports. According to the suit, Ms. Robinson was "sexually battered in an ICM limousine en route to a Paramount Studio event." It goes on ..."Robinson was later raped by another co-conspirator." Ms. Robinson's attorney Perry Wander tells TMZ, "This case was filed as a class action because Ms. Robinson has since learned that this scheme has ensnared other actresses who were 'hip- pocketed' by ICM and sexually exploited." LINCARE INC: California Appellate Court Revives Overtime Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A California appellate court recently revived, "Gomez v. Lincare Inc.," an overtime class-action suit brought by on-call workers of the in-home respiratory services provider, Tresa Baldas of The National Law Journal reports. In the suit, employees allege that they deserve compensation for the time spent on call dealing with customer questions by phone, as well as for time spent on call but not handling customer inquiries, according to The National Law Journal report. MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Ariz. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A legal battle launched against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. in 2008 has expanded with the filing of a consolidated amended complaint, which merges proposed class-action claims from a slew of investors that accuse the dermatological-drug maker and several of its executives of overstating profits for more than four years, the Law360 reports. The latest version of the complaint was filed on May 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according to the Law360 report. In 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain officers of the company on behalf of purchasers of Medicis' common stock during the period from Oct. 30, 2003 to Sept. 23, 2008, both dates inclusive (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2008). The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, defendants overstated the Company's revenues and earnings by failing to properly account for returns in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The complaint specifically alleges that on Sept. 24, 2008, the company announced that its Audit Committee concluded that the company's financial statements for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008, would need to be restated due to improper return reserve calculations. Medicis admitted that it had improperly "accrued returns at replacement cost rather than deferring the gross sales price," and that it would have to revise "its reserve calculations to defer the gross sales value of the returned product." On this news, Medicis' stock dropped $2.34 per share to close at $15.58 per share, a one-day decline of 13%. As a result of the challenged statements Medicis' common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the class period, resulting in damage to class members who had purchased at prices inflated by defendants' materially false and misleading statements. NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: June 23 Hearing Set For Ohio Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio will hold a fairness hearing on June 23, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re Nationwide Financial Services Litigation, Case No. 2:08-cv-249." Previously, the Class Action Reporter reported that Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. is awaiting approval of a tentative settlement in several purported class-action lawsuits brought by Nationwide Financial Services Inc. shareholders against NFS; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.; Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.; Nationwide Corp.; and the directors of NFS (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2009). The memorandum of understanding is still conditioned upon the plaintiffs receiving satisfactory confirmatory discovery and upon court approval of the proposed settlement. The lawsuits arose following the announcement of the joint offer by NMIC, NMFIC and Nationwide Corp. to acquire all of the outstanding shares of NFS' Class A common stock. The lawsuits are pending in multiple jurisdictions and allege that the offer price was inadequate, that the process for reviewing the offer was procedurally unfair and that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the holders of the NFS Class A common stock. On Aug. 6, 2008, NFS and NMIC, NMFIC and Nationwide Corp. announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement for the acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of NFS' Class A common stock for $52.25 per share by Nationwide Corp, subject to the satisfaction of specific closing conditions. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding for the settlement of these lawsuits. The memorandum of understanding provides, among other things, for the settlement of the lawsuits and release of the defendants and, in exchange for the release and without admitting any wrongdoing, defendant NMIC shall acknowledge that the pending lawsuits were a factor, among others, that led it to offer an increased share price in the transaction. NMIC shall agree to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the costs of notifying the class members of the settlement. For more details, contact: Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. (jgolan@barrack.com) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-0600 Fax: 215-963-0838 - and - NFS Notice Administrator c/o Administar Services Group, LLC P.O. Box 24389 Jacksonville, FL 32241-4389 Fax: (904) 807-3030 e-mail: NFSNoticeAdministrator@AdministarLLC.com NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Faces Policyholders' Litigation in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Co. faces a purported class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio entitled, "Shannon Van Horn, et al. v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-605." The lawsuit is about whether Nationwide breached the contract with its policyholders by prematurely terminating the car rental benefits that it owed its policyholders when it makes an "offer" to settle its automobile policyholders' total loss claims. The plaintiffs assert that the insurance policy endorsements that Nationwide issued to plaintiffs and the class do not permit an early termination at the time that an "offer" to settle is made. The litigation covers anyone who was insured by Nationwide Property between Oct. 2, 1993 and Feb. 10, 2009. A copy of the complaint can be obtained free of charge at http://nationwideclassaction.com/ For more details, contact: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Richard L. Kellner, Esq. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 Web site: http://www.kbklawyers.com Austin Tighe, Esq. Feazell & Tighe LLP 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78730 Phone: (512) 372-8100 Fax: (512) 372-8140 Web site: http://www.feazell-tighe.com - and - Alberto R. Nestico, Esq. Kisling, Nestico & Redick LLC 3200 W. Market Street, Suite 300 Akron, Ohio 44333 Phone: (330) 869-9007 Fax: (330) 869-9008 Web site: http://www.knrlegal.com NAVISITE INC: Md. Court Give Final OK to $1.67M Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland gave final approval to the proposed $1.67 million settlement in the matter, "Pam Kagan Marketing, Inc. v. Navisite, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-03094," Brendan Kearney of The Maryland Daily Record reports. On Nov. 17, 2007, NaviSite, Inc., pursuant to its integration plans, closed the former Alabanza LLC data center in Baltimore, Maryland, and moved all equipment to its data center in Andover, Massachusetts. This allegedly caused a service outage (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2008). In that same month, the company was served notice of a plaintiff seeking a class status for the customers affected by the service outage. The total damages claimed approximately $5.0 million. In January 2008, the company was served notice of another plaintiff seeking a class status for the customers affected by the service outage. The purported class includes Alabanza direct customers and entities that purchased hosting services from those direct customers. The total damages claimed approximate $10.0 million. On May 21, 2008, the Court issued an order consolidating the two cases in the federal district court in Maryland, according to the company's June 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2008. The deal is between the Web-hosting company and more than 5,500 of its clients who experienced long service interruptions. It will actually cover business and personal Web site owners and larger resellers of server space from all over the world. For more details, contact: James L. Davidson, Esq. (jdavidson@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Rd Ste 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809 Phone: 15617503000 Fax: 15617503364 - and - Patrick C. Smith, Esq. (psmith@powersfrost.com) Powers and Frost LLP 502 Washington Ave Ste 200 Nottingham Center Towson, MD 21204 Phone: 14432799700 Fax: 14432799704 PEP BOYS: July 17, 2009 Hearing Set for "Berger" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles will hold a fairness hearing on July 17, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Steven Berger, et al. v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California, Case No. BC 384171." The hearing will be held in Department 39 of the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 39, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. On Jan. 23, 2008, plaintiff Steven Berger filed a lawsuit against Pep Boys alleging that Pep Boys improperly collected retail sales tax reimbursements on goods subject to mail-in rebates that were funded by Pep Boys. Plaintiff alleged that this conduct violated California law. Pep Boys, asserts that it remitted all sales tax reimbursements collected at the point of sale to the California State Board of Equalization. The Court has not ruled, one way or the other, on the correctness of plaintiff's claim. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement in principle. On April 21, 2009, the parties entered into a formal, written Settlement Agreement, which is on file with the Court. Under the settlement agreement, the court decided that everyone who fits this description is a Class Member: All persons who, from Jan. 23, 2005 through Aug. 31, 2008, (1) purchased a good at a California Pep Boys' store that was at the time of purchase the subject of a Pep Boys-funded mail-in rebate offer, (2) paid sales tax reimbursement on the full purchase price of the good at the point of sale, (3) properly submitted a rebate form, and (4) received a rebate that did not include an additional amount for the sales tax reimbursement collected on the face amount of the rebate. For more details, contact: 2049 Century Park East Suite 2150 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3123 Phone: (310) 461-1200 Fax: (310) 461-1201 Web site: http://www.kallawgroup.com - and - Settlement Administrator Phone: 1-800-737-2697 Web site: http://www.bergerlawsuit.com/ POPULAR INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Litigation in P.R. --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in Popular, Inc. (Public, NASDAQ:BPOP) has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Popular, Inc. between January 23, 2008 and January 22, 2009 against Popular, Inc and certain of its officers over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Popular, Inc and certain of its officers violated the Exchange Act by failing to disclose between January 23, 2008 and January 22, 2009 material adverse facts about Popular's true financial condition, business and prospects. Then on January 22, 2009, Popular announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2008, the period ended December 31, 2008. For the quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $702.9 million, citing to a higher provision for loan losses, among other things. In response to this announcement, shares of Popular's common stock fell $2.52 per share, or 50%, to close at $ 2.46 per share, on heavy trading volume. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Certiorari Granted in "Romero" Suit in Feb. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, in February 2009, granted the petition of writ of certiorari filed by Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., in the class-action suit styled, "Romero v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc." The case was filed in April 2000 in District Court, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, against major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. Cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. The court granted class certification on May 14, 2003, in the action, which seeks to recover an amount not to exceed $74,000 per class member in actual and punitive damages, exclusive of interest and costs. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, advance and/or stabilize prices for cigarettes in the State of New Mexico from at least as early as Jan. 1, 1998, through the present. On June 30, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On Nov. 18, 2008, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and Philip Morris. On Jan. 7, 2009, RJR Tobacco filed a petition of writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico. On Feb. 27, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico granted that petition, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery Ongoing in Suit for FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- A collective action complaint against Reynolds American, Inc. subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is still in the discovery phase. On March 19, 2007, in "Marshall v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," the plaintiff filed a collective action complaint against RJR Tobacco in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The allegations include failure to keep accurate records of all hours worked by RJR Tobacco's employees and failure to pay wages and overtime compensation to non-exempt retail representatives. The total number of current or former retail representatives participating is 469, including those who have opted in the Marshall case and subsequent lawsuits filed in New York and California. Two new cases alleging violations of the FLSA and other state law wage and hour claims were filed in February 2008: -- Radcliffe v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed on Feb. 14, 2008, in federal court in California, was served on May 9, 2008; and -- Dinino v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed on Feb. 29, 2008, in federal court in New York, served on April 18, 2008. The Dinino and Radcliffe matters have been transferred to the Missouri court in conjunction with the already pending Marshall case due to the similarity of issues to be resolved. The plaintiffs in the Dinino and Radcliffe matters failed to move for class certification on the state law claims. On Dec. 22, 2008, RJR Tobacco's motion for partial summary judgment was granted. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' commutes from their homes to their first assignment of the day, and their commutes from their last assignments of the day to their homes, are non-compensable. On Feb. 5, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on this issue or, in the alternative, plaintiffs' request for certification for interlocutory appeal. The consolidated case is still in the discovery phase. Two mediation sessions were held in the first quarter of 2009, but the parties were unable to reach a resolution, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: ETS Suit Still Stayed Pending "Scott" Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action suit styled, "Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.," which names Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, as a defendant, remains stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the case tagged "Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc." The ETS class-action lawsuit was filed against U.S. Cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. Cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. The "Young" case filed in November 1997, in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, is an ETS class action on behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. On Oct. 13, 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the outcome of the appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Faces Amended Complaint in "Cleary" Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., faces an amended complaint in the class-action lawsuit styled, "Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc." In the case filed in June 1998, and pending in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Dec. 21, 2001, in an action brought against major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. The case is brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been injured by: (1) the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which defendants concealed material facts regarding the addictive nature of nicotine, (2) the defendants' alleged acts of targeting its advertising and marketing to minors, and (3) the defendants' claimed breach of the public right to defendants' compliance with the laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to minors. The plaintiffs request that the defendants be required to disgorge all profits unjustly received through its sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs and the class, which in no event will be greater than $75,000 per each class member, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs. On March 27, 2006, the court dismissed count V, public nuisance, and count VI, unjust enrichment. On July 11, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2009, to add a claim of unjust enrichment and to include in the class individuals who smoked "light" cigarettes. On March 13, 2009, the defendants filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. RJR Tobacco and B&W answered the amended complaint on March 31, 2009. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand back to the Circuit Court of Cook County on April 13, 2009. On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs in several pending "lights" cases filed a motion before the Federal Panel on Multi-District Litigation to transfer and consolidate eleven "lights" cases for pretrial proceedings. Among the cases sought to be consolidated were Schwab and Cleary, as well as nine additional cases currently pending against Philip Morris. Plaintiffs also requested that the actions all be transferred to Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in "Jones" Suit in Mo. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action lawsuit captioned, "Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.," which names several Reynolds American, Inc. entities as defendants, is proceeding in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri. The case was originally filed in December 1998, in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Feb. 16, 1999. The action was brought against the major U.S. Cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., on behalf of tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court on Feb. 17, 1999. There has been limited activity in this case, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Smith" Price Fixing Suit Still in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery continues in the class-action case styled, "Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.," according to Reynolds American, Inc.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The case was filed in February 2000, in the District Court, Seward County, Kansas, against the major U.S. Cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. The court granted class certification on Nov. 15, 2001, in the action seeking to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Cigarette Ad --------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action case styled, "Stewart v. RJR Tobacco," which names Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., as a defendant, is still in a preliminary phase. In December 2007, nine states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington) sued RJR Tobacco claiming that an advertisement published in a magazine the prior month violated the Master Settlement Agreement's ban on the use of cartoons. The states asserted that the magazine's content adjacent to a Camel gatefold advertisement included cartoon images prohibited by the MSA and that certain images used in the Camel ad itself were prohibited cartoons. In Stewart v. RJR Tobacco, a class-action filed in California state court against the magazine's publisher, Wenner Media, and RJR Tobacco claiming the mention of bands in the magazine- created content violated their right of publicity. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. The case is still in a preliminary phase, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. SEQUENOM INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Sequenom, Inc. said that on April 30, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the company. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from June 4, 2008 through April 29, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Judge Orders Revision of Investors' Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington rejected portions of a class- action lawsuit brought by Washington Mutual investors, calling it a "verbose and disordered" argument that failed to identify specific claims of fraud against the failed bank's officers, The Seattle Times reports. The 470-page suit, notable for its citations from 89 "confidential witnesses," alleged that WaMu's officers and directors, as well as investment banks involved in several securities offerings, misrepresented the company's financial results, secretly undermined its risk-management policies, corrupted its appraisal process and abandoned appropriate underwriting standards for home loans, according to the Seattle Times report. In a 33-page ruling issued on May 15, 2009, Judge Pechman, told lawyers for the investor plaintiffs that they must revise and resubmit their claims of securities fraud against former WaMu chief executive Kerry Killinger, six other officers and the company's board of directors, The Seattle Times reported. According to the judge, the investors' filings "fail to organize and identify the allegations supporting securities fraud as to each defendant ... and appear to include numerous irrelevant allegations." Even after they followed up with a 150-page brief and oral arguments, Judge Pechman added, "the court remains mystified at (plaintiffs) counsel's failure to allege cohesive claims," reports the Seattle Times. Bradley S. Keller, Esq. of Byrnes & Keller LLP is the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. Rob Pfister, Esq. of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in Los Angeles is one of several attorneys representing the former WaMu officers other than Mr. Killinger. For more details, contact: Bradley S. Keller, Esq. Byrnes & Keller LLP 1000 Second Avenue 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104-1094 Phone: (206) 622-2000 Fax: (206) 622-2522 Web site: http://www.byrneskeller.com/ YTB INT'L: June 1 Hearing Set For Ill. Suit by Former Customers --------------------------------------------------------------- A June 1, 2009 hearing is set for a motion that sought for the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit filed against YTB International, Inc. a.k.a. YourTravelBiz by former customers, Elizabeth Donald of Belleville News Democrat reports. Jonathan Quinn, Esq. an attorney for YourTravelBiz, of the Reed Smith law firm in Chicago, said a hearing will be held June 1, 2009 in the class-action suit on a motion to dismiss, according to the Belleville News Democrat report. The class-action suit, filed last year on behalf of more than 1,000 people who participated in the YTB system, seeks more than $100 million in damages, reports the Belleville News Democrat. MSN Money previously reported that former agents of YTB filed a the class-action lawsuit against the company, alleging it is an illegal pyramid scheme (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008). MSN cites the company as saying in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to defend the case vigorously. The MSN report recounts that a suit was filed on Aug. 4, 2008, by California Attorney General Jerry Brown Jr. against YTB and the company's founders, Lloyd Tomer, Scott Tomer, Kim Sorensen and Andrew Cauthen, for allegedly operating an illegal pyramid scheme. The lawsuit seeks $15 million in fines and restitution. More than 90 people over the past three years have complained about YourTravelBiz.com to the Better Business Bureau of eastern Missouri and southern Illinois. More than 40 of those complaints were lodged this year, the BBB said. Earlier this month, thousands of agents attended a national convention in St. Louis, where they defended the company as legitimate, MSN notes. New Securities Fraud Cases NORTEL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Lawsuit v. Former Execs -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nortel Corp. (NYSE:NTL) between May 2, 2008 and September 17, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Nortel is not named in this action as a defendant because it and its core operating subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy protection in January 2009. The complaint charges certain of Nortel's former executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Nortel supplies end-to-end networking products and solutions that help organizations enhance and simplify communications. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: -- that demand for the Company's products was declining as carriers cut back their capital expenditures and other customers deferred purchase decisions; -- that the Company's financial results were materially overstated as the Company was failing to properly write down its goodwill; -- that the Company's restructuring was not meeting with success as the Company was struggling to cut costs and improve profitability; and -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its business, operations, earnings and prospects. On September 17, 2008, Nortel issued a press release announcing its "preliminary view on certain third quarter results." The Company also announced that it was engaging in a "comprehensive review" of Nortel's business and that "planning" was "underway for further restructuring and other cost reduction initiatives." In response to the Company's announcement, the price of Nortel stock declined from $5.30 per share to $2.68, on heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Nortel securities during the Class Period. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 19, 2009. For more details, contact: Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfel, Esq. (ddjr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/nortelcorp/ SEQUENOM INC: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Sequenom, Inc. (SQNM) publicly traded securities during the period June 4, 2008 through April 29, 2009. The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that Sequenom employees mishandled test data and results regarding a Down syndrome test. As a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements, Sequenom stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $27.76 per share on September 24, 2008. This inflated stock price permitted Sequenom to raise $92 million in a secondary stock offering in July 2008, acquire a diagnostic company for fewer shares of Sequenom stock than would have been necessary absent the inflation, and commence a tender offer for another company in an all-stock transaction. On April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release announcing that the expected launch of its Down syndrome test would be delayed due to the discovery by Company officials of employee mishandling of research and development test data and results. As a result, the Company could no longer rely on the previously announced test data and results. On this news, Sequenom's stock collapsed, dropping more than $11 per share to as low as $3.23 per share, a one-day decline of more than 75%, on volume of more than 85 million shares. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009. For more details, contact: Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com) Charles H. Johnson & Associates 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112 Phone: (651) 633-5685 ********* 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 * * *