/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090720.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 141 Headlines ACCREDITED HOME: Parties Reach $22M Settlement in Calif. Lawsuit AEROSMITH: Hawaii Judge Approves Deal in Suit Over 2007 Concert ALLIED HOME: Appellate Court Overturns Ruling in Fees Litigation BABIES 'R' US: Pa. Court Certifies Subclasses in "McDonough" CAPITAL ONE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over North Fork Bank Acquisition CASH AMERICA: Faces Pennsylvania Litigation Over Payday Loans CENTRO PROPERTIES: Favors Settling Investors' Suit in Australia CITY OF FARGO: N.D. Judge Approves Extra Awards in Cameras Suit COLORADO: Appeals Court Orders Review of Ruling in "Vandehey" CONSECO INC: Contesting Claims in Merged Annuity Marketing Suit CONSECO INC: Defends "Yue" Contract Breach Lawsuit in California CONSECO INC: "Langendorf" Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval CONSECO INC: Nov. 2 Jury Trial Set for Ruderman's Suit in Fla. CONSECO INC: Recertification of "Doiron" Class Denied on April 7 CONSECO INC: Securities Lawsuit Set for May 10, 2010 Jury Trial CONSECO INC: Still Defends "Fletcher" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages CONSECO INC: To Defend Amended "Brady" Contract Breach Complaint CONSECO INC: To Defend "Rowe" Suit v. Bankers Life in Illinois COSERV ELECTRIC: Faces Texas Suits Over Usage of $54M in Funds DR PEPPER: Appeal to Dismissal of "Holk" Lawsuit v. Unit Pending DR PEPPER: Snapple Beverage Unit Faces "Koenig" Suit in Calif. DR PEPPER: Unit Continues to Face Wage and Hour Suits in Calif. DR PEPPER: "Weiner" Suit Still Stayed Pending Ruling in "Holk" HEALTHONE: Faces Colo. Litigation Over the Hepatitis C Scare HMS FINANCIAL: Faces Investors' Suit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged TARP Exploitation JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Payment Protector Plan" LENDER PROCESSING: Unit Faces 13 Suits Over Illegal Price Fixing MANUEL E. SOLIS: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Bogus "R.O.I." Program MULTIPLE LISTING: Faces Antitrust Litigation in South Carolina NBC UNIVERSAL: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Diaz" Case NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE: Still Faces Suit Over Acquisition Offers ONTARIO: Faces CAD$2B Litigation Over Alleged Abuses at HRC PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Approves $55.95M Suit Settlement PHILADELPHIA POLICE: Faces Pa. Litigation Over "Domelights.com" PROSPER.COM: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of Unregistered Securities ROYAL BANK: European Pensions Funds Included in N.Y. Litigation WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Settle Mass. Hourly Workers' Suit ZUMIEZ INC: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages for $1.3M New Securities Fraud Cases COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing ********* ACCREDITED HOME: Parties Reach $22M Settlement in Calif. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in proposed class-action lawsuit against bankrupt subprime lender Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and its directors and officers have reached a $22 million cash settlement, Law360 reports. It was previously reported that Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust and certain directors of Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. continue to face a consolidated securities fraud class- action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2008). In March 2007, AHLHC was served with a class action, "Atlas v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," brought with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by AHLHC and certain members of senior management. AHLHC is aware that five similar securities class action lawsuits were also filed with the same court. They are: 1. "Joory v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," 2. "Pourshafie v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," 3. "Theda v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," 4. "City of Brockton Retirement System v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co.," and 5. "Kornfeld v. James A. Konrath, et al." Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, these cases have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been selected. The consolidated, amended complaint was filed on Aug. 24, 2007, and added as defendants the Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust and certain directors of AHLHC. On Jan. 4, 2008, the Court denied AHLHC's motion to dismiss and granted the REIT's motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint by Feb. 4, 2008. The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint. AHLHC's answer to the complaint was due March 14, 2008, according to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Atlas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00488-H-RBB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Marilyn L. Huff, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David C. Walton, Esq. (davew@lerachlaw.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 Representing the defendants are: Andrea M. Kimball, Esq. (akimball@luce.com) Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-3372 Phone: (619) 236-1414 Fax: (619) 645-5323 - and - Joshua G. Hamilton, Esq. (joshuahamilton@paulhastings.com) Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Fax: (213) 927-5896 AEROSMITH: Hawaii Judge Approves Deal in Suit Over 2007 Concert --------------------------------------------------------------- Second Circuit Judge E. Joseph Cardoza gave final approval to a settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Aerosmith in connection to a 2007 concert that was canceled, Lila Fujimoto of Maui News reports. The Associated Press previously reported that Aerosmith has agreed to perform on Maui to settle a class-action lawsuit fans filed against the band after it canceled a sold-out concert on the Valley Isle in 2007 (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009). Brandee Faria, Esq. is one of three attorneys representing the jilted concert goers. She tells The Associated Press that everyone who bought a ticket to the original concert will receive a free ticket, and all out-of-pocket expenses will be reimbursed regardless of the amount. The new concert date hasn't been determined but will probably be sometime in the fall, reports The Associated Press. The Associated Press reported that the settlement was reached on April 27, 2009 after two days of talks. The suit was filed by fans who bought tickets and incurred other costs while making plans to attend the concert. They alleged Aerosmith opted to play at more lucrative venues in Chicago and on Oahu, according to The Associated Press report. The case grew out of a civil suit filed on behalf of Honolulu resident Lisa Sanchez and three others who bought tickets and incurred other costs while making plans to attend an Aerosmith concert scheduled for Sept. 27, 2007, at War Memorial Stadium on Maui, according to Maui News. After tickets had been sold, the band pulled out of the concert, saying it had to reschedule a Chicago concert to Sept. 24, 2007, leaving too little time for the band's equipment to arrive for the Maui show. Aerosmith did perform at a private show for Toyota car dealers on Oahu on Sept. 29, 2007, Maui News reported. Maui News reports that as part of a settlement reached in April, Aerosmith agreed to perform on Maui and provide free tickets to more than 8,000 people who bought tickets to the concert scheduled two years ago. Because the band also will schedule a public performance on Oahu around the same time, ticket buyers could opt for tickets to the Oahu show instead. The deadline for filing claims, including for any airfare,, lodging and other costs associated with the canceled concert, passed on July 14, 2009, reports Maui News. For more details, contact: Brandee J. K. Faria, Esq. (bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com) Perkin & Faria Davies Pacific Center 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2000 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone: 808-523-2300 Fax: 808-531-8898 Web site: http://www.perkinlaw.com ALLIED HOME: Appellate Court Overturns Ruling in Fees Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Fifth District Appellate Court has ruled that Judge Michael O'Malley of St. Clair County Circuit erred when he denied a motion to compel arbitration in a suit against Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corp., a mortgage broker accused in a class- action suit of charging customers excessive fees and pocketing the difference, Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record reports. In a ruling issued on July 10, 2009, the appeals court remanded the case back to St. Clair County. It directed Judge O'Malley to sever the prohibition on class-action provision and to enforce the remainder of Allied Capital's arbitration clause. Fifth District Appellate Judge James Wexstten wrote the unanimous opinion with Judges Thomas Welch and Melissa Chapman concurring, according to The St. Clair Record. The suit was filed by Rosemary Keefe in the St. Clair County Circuit Court under case number 04-L-502. It was filed on her own behalf and as class representative for those who used the mortgage broker for an array of services including credit report processing and appraisals. Ms. Keefe's suit claims the company "marked up" the services and that Allied Capital took the difference, reports The St. Clair Record. Ms. Keefe sued on the grounds of unjust enrichment, consumer fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Her suit seeks damages of between $50,000 and $75,000 per class member. The St. Clair Record reports that Ms. Keefe and her husband worked with the mortgage broker to obtain a loan to refinance their Berwyn property in 1999. At the time, the couple also signed an arbitration rider provided by the company. That rider is at the heart of the appellate case. After the suit was filed, Allied Capital filed a motion to compel arbitration per the signed 1999 rider. The rider provides that, "All disputes, claims[,] or controversies arising from or related to the loan ***, including statutory claims, shall be resolved by binding arbitration, and not by court action, except as provided under 'Exclusions from Arbitration' below," as cited in the appellate ruling. On July 18, 2007, Judge O'Malley ruled that the rider was "procedurally and substantively unconscionable, particularly in light of the exclusion-from-arbitration section," The St. Clair Record reports. However, the appellate court, on reviewing the case, found that Judge O'Malley sided with the plaintiff without holding an evidentiary hearing to establish whether there were grounds to justify blocking the arbitration stipulated in the rider. The appeals court did not agree that the rider's promise of arbitration was "illusory." "The defendants' promise to arbitrate in the present case is neither empty nor optional," Judge Wexstten wrote. The appeals court found the rider to be a mutual contract and that it had a provision for arbitration should the borrower bring a legal case. It also did not find that the rider was "unconscionable," as the plaintiff signed it and was given notice of its consequences in bold face type, reports The St. Clair Record. The appellate court though found the class-action waiver the defendants included in their contract was unconscionable and is not enforceable. "Small consumer claims such as the plaintiff's are precisely the type of claim that class actions are designed to address," Judge Wexstten wrote, according to The St. Clair Record. BABIES 'R' US: Pa. Court Certifies Subclasses in "McDonough" ------------------------------------------------------------ On July 15, 2009, Judge Anita Brody issued a fifty-page opinion certifying consumer subclasses in a vertical price fixing case against Babies 'R' Us and certain of its key suppliers, noting that, Babies 'R' Us "conspired with numerous manufacturers, including the defendants Britax Child Safety, Inc., Kids Line, LLC, Maclaren USA, Inc., Medela, Inc., Peg Perego USA, Inc., and BabyBjorn AB, which supplied U.S. retailers through defendant Regal Lager, Inc." The opinion and accompanying order were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. law firm of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. was appointed co-lead counsel in the class action, representing consumers who purchased certain baby products from Babies 'R' Us between 1999 and 2006. Plaintiffs allege that Babies 'R' Us coerced the six manufacturer defendants (including Regal Lager, BabyBjorn AB's former exclusive U.S. distributer) into adopting vertical price restraints to prevent retail discounting and insulate Babies 'R' Us from price competition. The opinion follows an extensive briefing schedule and more than two days of evidentiary hearings in which factual evidence and expert testimony was presented. The class plaintiffs' case will now move forward under the direction of co-lead counsel Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC. The case is "McDonough et al. v. Toys 'R' Us, Inc., et al., case number 2:06-cv-00242," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For more details, contact: Eugene A. Spector Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. Phone: 215-496-0300 Web site: http://www.srkw-law.com CAPITAL ONE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over North Fork Bank Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Capital One, N.A. (NYSE: COF), one of the nation's largest banks, has been sued by a former North Fork Bank customer who alleges that, upon the acquisition of North Fork by Capital One, he and other banking customers were charged a number of improper bank fees. The action is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was filed by Scott+Scott LLP and Whalen & Tusa, P.C. on behalf of former North Fork Bank and Superior Savings of New England deposit holders. The Plaintiff alleges that Capital One is improperly charging certain bank fees, including, overdraft fees, foreign ATM fees and other "miscellaneous fees" without complete and accurate prior notification and despite the fact such accounts were represented as "Completely Free" bank accounts. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff and other consumers were charged monthly Undeliverable Mail Fees by Capital One for account statements that were, in fact, received and thus were not "undeliverable." "Consumers should not be misled by the branding of accounts as 'free' when they contain improper, unnecessary and hidden fees," Scott+Scott partner David R. Scott stated. "The law does not look favorably on such practices." Whalen & Tusa partner Joseph Tusa added, "When making their banking decisions, consumers should be made aware of fees before being charged by Capital One." For more details, contact: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.(jguglielmo@scott-scott.com) Scott+Scott, LLP Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (212) 223-6444 e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com CASH AMERICA: Faces Pennsylvania Litigation Over Payday Loans ------------------------------------------------------------- Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC faces a purported class-action lawsuit in connection to payday loans, Joseph N. DiStefano of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports. The suit was filed on May 19, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed by Yulon Clerk, under the caption, "Clerk et al v. Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC, Case No. 2:2009-cv-02245." For more details, contact: Ryan E. Borneman, Esq. (REBorneman@DuaneMorris.com) Duane Morris LLP 30 South 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-979-1105 Fax: 215-979-1020 CENTRO PROPERTIES: Favors Settling Investors' Suit in Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- Centro Properties Group and Central Retail Trust chair Paul Cooper, a former Freehills partner, is keen to arrange an out- of-court settlement with investors in the troubled groups, The Australian reports. On July 16, 2009, mediation for two class-action lawsuits seeking about AUD$1B start in the Federal Court of Australia, according to The Australian. The law firms involved are Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon, while auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers is also a respondent, The Australian reported. CITY OF FARGO: N.D. Judge Approves Extra Awards in Cameras Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ralph Erickson of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota awarded two people extra money in the settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the city of Fargo over traffic fines, The Associated Press reports. Stephanie Sauby of West Fargo and James Burns of Fargo were awarded $10,000 and $5,000, respectively. According to the judge, both "bore risks and burdens," including public criticism, by bringing the lawsuit, according to The Associated Press. Magistrate Judge Karen Klein of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota has given preliminary approval to the settlement of the class-action lawsuit entitled, "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW-KKK," The Associated Press previously reported (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2009). On July 1, 2009, the judge gave preliminary approval to the settlement. A final hearing will be in late November or December, after a period in which people can submit claims, according to AP. The Associated Press previously reported that the plaintiffs involved in the purported class-action lawsuit are saying they should share $15,000 from the case (Class Action Reporter, July 1, 2009). Stephanie Sauby of West Fargo, who filed the original lawsuit in January 2007, is asking for $10,000. James Burns of Fargo is seeking $5,000. Their lawyers say Ms. Sauby has been subjected to "mean-spirited, vile and personal attacks" and deserves the higher amount, according to AP. Patrick Springer of INFORUM reported that a proposed $1.5 million settlement was reached in a purported class-action suit, captioned, "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW- KKK," (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2009). The case, filed by Stephanie Sauby, a West Fargo woman, was certified as a class-action, with 54,000 drivers eligible to become part of the case who collectively paid fines exceeding those set by state law by $4.3 million, according to the INFORUM report. Dickinson Press previously reported that Judge Rodney Webb of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota ruled that a West Fargo woman can continue her lawsuit against the city of Fargo over traffic fines. According to Dickinson Press, plaintiff Stephanie Sauby accused the city of violating her rights by assessing higher traffic fines than state law allows. The city argued that the fines were not unconstitutional, and asked Judge Webb to dismiss Ms. Sauby's lawsuit. The report notes that in his recent ruling, Judge Webb dismissed one of the counts against the city, but found enough evidence to continue the case on two other counts. Specifically, Judge Webb threw out Ms. Sauby's claim of excessive fines but said she "has successfully raised equal protection and due process claims." Judge Webb, however, has not yet decided whether to grant Ms. Sauby's case class-action status, Dickinson Press relates. According to the report, the city's lawyer, Stacy Tjon-Bossart, Esq., did not return a phone message asking for comment. Ms. Sauby's attorney, Timothy Purdon, Esq., likewise has no comment. The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010- RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Judge Rodney S. Webb, presiding, with referral to Judge Karen K. Klein. For more details, contact: Timothy Q. Purdon, Esq. (tpurdon@vogellaw.com) Vogel Law Firm PO Box 2097 200 N 3 St Ste 201 Bismarck, ND 58502-2097 Phone: 701-258-7899 Fax: 701-258-9705 - and - Stacey Elizabeth Tjon Bossart, Esq. (STB@solberglaw.com) Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon PO Box 1897 Fargo, ND 58107-1897 Phone: 701-237-3166 COLORADO: Appeals Court Orders Review of Ruling in "Vandehey" ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal appeals court ordered a lower court to reconsider a decision granting class-action status to the lawsuit, "Vandehey, et al. v. Vallario, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01405-PSF," Dennis Webb of The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. In July 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union filed the original class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. It brought the suit on behalf of prisoners in the Garfield County Jail who were subjected to widespread excessive force by deputies' misuse and abuse of pepperball guns, restraint chairs, Tasers, pepper spray, and electroshock belts (Class Action Reporter, July 6, 2007). Defendants in the suit are Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario and Jail Commander Scott Dawson. The plaintiffs representing the class of current and future prisoners are Clarence Vandehey, William Langley, Samuel Lincoln, and Jared Hogue. The ACLU suit alleges that the jail's use of the devices violates widely accepted standards of law enforcement and corrections professionals, as well as the manufacturers' and vendors' training and recommendations for safe and appropriate use. It claims that prisoners shot with pepperballs or drenched with pepper spray are regularly strapped into the restraint chair -- sometimes for hours-without being provided any opportunity to decontaminate. Two of the four named plaintiffs have serious mental health problems, but the jail has allegedly denied their repeated requests for mental health care. ACLU amended its suit on Aug. 1, 2007 to include allegations that the sheriff denies mental health care to indigent county jail prisoners and imposes harsh discipline without due process. The original complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e1b The suit is "Vandehey, et al. v. Vallario, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01405-PSF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Phillip S. Figa presiding. For more details, contact: Taylor Scott Pendergrass, Esq. (tpendergrass@aclu-co.org) American Civil Liberties Union-Denver 400 Corona Street Denver, CO 80218 Phone: 303-777-5482 Fax: 303-777-1773 Mark Silverstein, Esq. (msilver2@att.net) American Civil Liberties Union-Denver 400 Corona Street Denver, CO 80218 Phone: 303-777-5482 Fax: 303-777-1773 - and - J. Gregory Whitehair, Esq. (gregory.whitehair@comcast.net) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP-Denver 1801 California Street #4200 Denver, CO 80202-2641 Phone: 303-298-5923 Fax: 303-313-2845 CONSECO INC: Contesting Claims in Merged Annuity Marketing Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco, Inc. still intends to oppose any form of class-action treatment of the claims in the consolidated action captioned, "In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation." On Nov. 17, 2005, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, "Robert H. Hansen, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C0504726." Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in 2000, and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national class for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; elder abuse; unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices; unlawful, deceptive and misleading advertising; breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust. On Jan. 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same court entitled, "Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C06-00537. Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003." Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and that the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable for seniors age 65 and older. On March 3, 2006, a first amended complaint was filed in the Hansen case adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In an order dated April 14, 2006, the court consolidated the two cases under the original Hansen cause number and retitled the consolidated action: "In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation." A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 27, 2007, which has added as defendants Conseco Services, LLC and Conseco Marketing, LLC. The court has not yet made a determination whether the case should go forward as a class action, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. The company focuses on serving the senior and middle-income markets. CNO sells its products through three distribution channels: career agents, professional independent producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines) and direct marketing. The company manages its business through three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance Group and Colonial Penn. CONSECO INC: Defends "Yue" Contract Breach Lawsuit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco, Inc. defends a complaint entitled, "Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS." On March 4, 2008, the Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff in this putative class action owns a Valulife universal life policy insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company on Sept. 26, 1995. Plaintiff is claiming breach of contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and Declaratory Relief. The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm 'universal life' insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life. Plaintiff alleges that members of the class will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance that are set to take place in the twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies. No such increases have yet been applied to the subject policies, and none is scheduled to take effect until around 2011. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 25, 2008, which was denied by the court. Plaintiff has not yet filed a motion for certification of the class, and the company intends to oppose any form of class treatment of these claims, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. The company focuses on serving the senior and middle-income markets. CNO sells its products through three distribution channels: career agents, professional independent producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines) and direct marketing. The company manages its business through three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance Group and Colonial Penn. CONSECO INC: "Langendorf" Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a contract breach and consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company is pending court approval. On June 4, 2008, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Cook County Illinois Circuit Court Chancery Division, "Sheldon Langendorf, et. al. individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company, and Conseco, Inc., et. al. Case No. 08CH20571." Plaintiff is claiming breach of contract and consumer fraud and seeks a declaratory judgment, claiming that Senior Health (formerly Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company prior to its name change in October 2008) and other affiliated companies routinely and improperly refuse to accept Medicare explanations of benefits as documentation in support of proofs of claim on individual hospital indemnity and other policies of health insurance. Senior Health subsequently removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where it is now pending as Case No. 08-CV-3914. By stipulation of the parties, Conseco, Inc. was dismissed as a party on Sept. 29, 2008. Senior Health filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on Aug. 22, 2008, which the court granted in part and denied in part by entry dated Dec. 18, 2008, dismissing the claim for Illinois statutory consumer fraud. The court has also established a schedule for briefing on class certification, which will be concluded by July 20, 2009. The company agreed to assume liability for this litigation in connection with the separation of Senior Health. The parties have agreed to settle this case, subject to court approval, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. The company focuses on serving the senior and middle-income markets. CNO sells its products through three distribution channels: career agents, professional independent producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines) and direct marketing. The company manages its business through three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance Group and Colonial Penn. CONSECO INC: Nov. 2 Jury Trial Set for Ruderman's Suit in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has scheduled a jury trial for Sydelle Ruderman's purported class- action suit against a Conseco, Inc. subsidiary on Nov. 2, 2009. On Dec. 8, 2008, the purported class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, "Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer." In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum benefit, and breached the contract by stopping her benefits when they reached the lifetime maximum. The company takes the position that the inflation escalator only affects the per day maximum benefit, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. The company focuses on serving the senior and middle-income markets. CNO sells its products through three distribution channels: career agents, professional independent producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines) and direct marketing. The company manages its business through three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance Group and Colonial Penn. CONSECO INC: Recertification of "Doiron" Class Denied on April 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, on April 7, 2009, entered an order denying recertification of the proposed classes in Diana Doiron's lawsuit against a Conseco, Inc. subsidiary. On Sept. 24, 2004, a purported statewide class-action lawsuit was filed in the 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana, "Diana Doiron, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Health Insurance Company, Case No. 61,534." In her complaint, plaintiff claims that she was damaged due to Conseco Health Insurance Company's failure to pay claims made under her cancer policy, and seeks compensatory and statutory damages in an unspecified amount along with declaratory and injunctive relief. Conseco Health Insurance Company caused the case to be removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on Nov. 3, 2004, and it was assigned Case No. 04-784-D-M2. An order was issued on Feb. 15, 2007, granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. The order specifically certifies two sub-classes identifying them as the radiation treatment sub-class and the chemotherapy treatment sub-class. The company appealed the certification order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and by order entered May 28, 2008, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed class certification but made modifications to the class definitions. The company's subsequent petition for rehearing was denied by order dated June 27, 2008. Briefing in the district court on remand, to determine the appropriate revised class definition, concluded in March 2009 and on April 7, 2009, the District Court entered an order denying recertification of the proposed classes, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. The company focuses on serving the senior and middle-income markets. CNO sells its products through three distribution channels: career agents, professional independent producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines) and direct marketing. The company manages its business through three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance Group and Colonial Penn. CONSECO INC: Securities Lawsuit Set for May 10, 2010 Jury Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Conseco, Inc., and some of its former officers is scheduled for jury trial on May 10, 2010. After the company's predecessor announced its intention to restructure on Aug. 9, 2002, eight purported securities fraud class action suits were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. These suits were filed on behalf of persons or entities that purchased the predecessor's common stock on various dates between Oct. 24, 2001, and Aug. 9, 2002. The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allege material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of Conseco and alleged problems in Conseco Finance Corp.'s manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial inflation of the company's Predecessor's stock price. On March 13, 2003, all the cases were consolidated into one in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned, "Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB." The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The plaintiffs then filed an amended consolidated class-action complaint with respect to the individual defendants on Dec. 8, 2003. A motion to dismiss the case was filed on behalf of the individual defendants and on July 14, 2005, the court granted the request. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Aug. 24, 2005. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May 2, 2008. On March 20, 2009 the court granted that motion. On April 24, 2009, certain of the defendants initiated a request to appeal the class certification ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The matter is scheduled for a jury trial on May 10, 2010, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al., Case No. 1:02- cv-01332-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge David Frank Hamilton presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, Esq. (laskido@hotmail.com) 3858 Carson Street, Suite 204 Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: 310-792-3948 Fax: 310-792-0600 - and - Brian Joseph Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com) Law Offices Of Brian Barry 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307 Los Angeles, CA 90046 Phone: 310-788-0831 Fax: 310-788-0841 Representing the defendants are: Steven Kenneth Huffer, Esq. (steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com) Huffer & Weathers 151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1850 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317-822-8010 Fax: 317-822-8088 - and - Robert J. Kopecky, Esq. (rkopecky@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-2084 Fax: 317-660-0412 CONSECO INC: Still Defends "Fletcher" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-action lawsuit styled, "Robin Fletcher individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. RG08366328." Bankers Life and Casualty Company is a subsidiary of the company. On Jan. 16, 2008, the purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. In her original complaint, plaintiff alleged nonpayment by Bankers Life and Casualty Company of overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse expenses, and failure to provide accurate wage statements to its sales representatives in the State of California for the time period Jan. 16, 2004 to present. In addition, the complaint alleges failure to pay wages on termination and unfair business practices. On Oct. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint which changes the proposed scope of the putative class from all agents in California for the subject time period to all agents at a single branch office in Alameda, California. This would reduce the putative class from hundreds of members to approximately 100 members, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. The company focuses on serving the senior and middle-income markets. CNO sells its products through three distribution channels: career agents, professional independent producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines) and direct marketing. The company manages its business through three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance Group and Colonial Penn. CONSECO INC: To Defend Amended "Brady" Contract Breach Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco, Inc. intends to defend an amended purported class action complaint filed by Cedric Brady in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On Dec. 24, 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed in California, "Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746." In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that the company committed breach of contract and insurance bad faith and violated various consumer protection statutes in the administration of various interest sensitive whole life products sold primarily under the name "Lifetrends" by requiring the payment of additional cash amounts to maintain the policies in force. On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the additional counts of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and declaratory relief. Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. The company focuses on serving the senior and middle-income markets. CNO sells its products through three distribution channels: career agents, professional independent producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines) and direct marketing. The company manages its business through three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance Group and Colonial Penn. CONSECO INC: To Defend "Rowe" Suit v. Bankers Life in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco, Inc. intends to defend a purported class action complaint filed against its subsidiary, Bankers Life and Casualty Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On Jan. 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois, Case No. 09CV491." The plaintiffs are alleging violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq., breach of common law fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf of the proposed national class and seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants used an improper and misleading sales and marketing approach to Seniors that fails to disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials, promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and less valuable than readily available alternative investment products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date beyond the applicants actuarial life expectancy. Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. The company focuses on serving the senior and middle-income markets. CNO sells its products through three distribution channels: career agents, professional independent producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines) and direct marketing. The company manages its business through three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance Group and Colonial Penn. COSERV ELECTRIC: Faces Texas Suits Over Usage of $54M in Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- CoServ Electric is currently facing three class-action lawsuits from its own members who allege that the company mismanaged $54 million that was owed to members, Anthony Scott of Lake Cities Sun reports. It was previously reported that members of Denton County Electric Cooperative, doing business as CoServ Electric, filed suit against their co-op (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2009). The lawsuit alleges that through improper accounting practices, the co-op has wrongfully taken $54 million of the members' money for its own use. The suit also alleges that controlling directors of the cooperative's board have subverted democratic control of the co-op, conducted their operations in a culture of secrecy, and placed the members' funds at risk in for-profit business endeavors. The allegations in the lawsuit are based upon information provided by Mark Glover, a director of the cooperative. One of the members suing the cooperative is Janice Brady, who ran for a director position to replace board chairman Jerry Cobb in 2008 and lost by a narrow margin. In particular, Ms. Brady alleges that CoServ has unlawfully provided member lists and daily vote tallies to its incumbent directors while denying the same information to challengers, and that as a result board elections are effectively rigged. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by the Lawrence Firm PLLC of Austin, TX, Kirby McInerney LLP of New York, NY and Dripping Spring, TX, Wood Thacker & Weatherly, P.C. of Denton, Texas, and Mitchell & DeClerck PLLC of Enid, Oklahoma. For more details, contact: David Kovel, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP Phone: 212.371.6600 Fax: 212.751.2540 Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com/ Paul Lawrence, Esq. Lawrence Firm PLLC Phone: 512-330-0074 e-mail: info@lawrence-firm.com Web site: http://www.lawrence-firm.com/ Wood Thacker & Weatherly, P.C. 400 West Oak Street, Suite 310 Denton, Texas 76201 Phone: 940-565-6565 Fax: 940-566-6673 Web site: http://www.wtwlaw-firm.com/ - and - Mitchell & DeClerck, PLLC 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, Oklahoma 73701 Phone: 580.234.5144 Fax: 580.234.8890 Web site: http://mitchelldeclerck.com/ DR PEPPER: Appeal to Dismissal of "Holk" Lawsuit v. Unit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal to the order dismissing the class action lawsuit filed by Stacy Holk against one of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Snapple Beverage Corp., is pending a hearing and decision by the court. In 2007, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Stacy Holk in New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County. The Holk case was filed as a class action. Subsequent to filing, the Holk case was removed to the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey. Holk alleges that Snapple's labeling of certain of its drinks is misleading and/or deceptive and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from various labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of monies paid for product and treble damages. Snapple filed a motion to dismiss the Holk case on a variety of grounds. On June 12, 2008, the district court granted Snapple's motion to dismiss and the Holk case was dismissed. The plaintiff has filed an appeal of the order dismissing the case, which is pending a hearing and decision by the court, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Holk v. Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-03018-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Mary L. Cooper, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Philip A. Tortoreti, Esq. (ptortoreti@wilentz.com) Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Phone: 732-636-8000 Representing the defendants is: Richard B. Harper, Esq. (richard.harper@bakerbotts.com) Baker Botts, LLP 30 Rockerfeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Phone: 212-408-2675 Fax: 212-259-2475 DR PEPPER: Snapple Beverage Unit Faces "Koenig" Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- One of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Snapple Beverage Corp., faces a class action lawsuit by Frances Von Koenig in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. In April 2009, Snapple Beverage Corp. was sued by Frances Von Koenig in a class action with similar allegations to Stacey Holk's case and seeking similar damages. The Holk case alleges that Snapple's labeling of certain of its drinks is misleading and/or deceptive and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from various labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of monies paid for product and treble damages. Plano, Texas-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. -- http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/-- formerly CSAB Inc, is an integrated refreshment beverage business, marketing more than 50 beverage brands throughout North America. In addition to its flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio includes 7UP, Mott's, A&W, Sunkist Soda, Hawaiian Punch, Canada Dry, Schweppes, RC Cola, Diet Rite, Rose's, Clamato, Mr & Mrs T, Holland House mixers and other consumer favorites. Based in Plano, Texas, the company has 24 bottling and manufacturing facilities, and 250 distribution centers across the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. It operates in four segments: Beverage Concentrates, Finished Goods, Bottling Group, and Mexico and the Caribbean. DR PEPPER: Unit Continues to Face Wage and Hour Suits in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- One of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Seven Up/RC Bottling Company Inc., continues to face class action lawsuits by Nicolas Steele and Robert Jones. In 2007, Seven Up/RC Bottling was sued by Nicolas Steele, and in a separate action by Robert Jones, in each case in Superior Court in the State of California (Orange County), alleging that its subsidiary failed to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements in accordance with applicable California wage and hour law. The cases were filed as class actions. The classes, which have not yet been certified, consist of employees who have held a merchandiser or delivery driver position in California in the past three years. The potential class size could be substantially higher due to the number of individuals who have held these positions over the three year period. On behalf of the classes, the plaintiffs claim lost wages, waiting time penalties and other penalties for each violation of the statute. In the Steele case, plaintiff's counsel and the company have reached an agreement to settle the case that is not material to the company. This settlement is subject to review and approval by the court. With respect to the Jones case, the company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted and will defend itself, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Plano, Texas-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. -- http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/-- formerly CSAB Inc, is an integrated refreshment beverage business, marketing more than 50 beverage brands throughout North America. In addition to its flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio includes 7UP, Mott's, A&W, Sunkist Soda, Hawaiian Punch, Canada Dry, Schweppes, RC Cola, Diet Rite, Rose's, Clamato, Mr & Mrs T, Holland House mixers and other consumer favorites. Based in Plano, Texas, the company has 24 bottling and manufacturing facilities, and 250 distribution centers across the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. It operates in four segments: Beverage Concentrates, Finished Goods, Bottling Group, and Mexico and the Caribbean. DR PEPPER: "Weiner" Suit Still Stayed Pending Ruling in "Holk" -------------------------------------------------------------- Proceedings in a putative class-action suit filed by Evan Weiner against one of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Snapple Beverage Corp., remain stayed. In 2007, the attorneys in Stacey Holk's case filed a new action in New York on behalf of plaintiff, Evan Weiner, with substantially the same allegations and seeking the same damages as in the Holk case. The Holk case alleges that Snapple's labeling of certain of its drinks is misleading and/or deceptive and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the class, including enjoining Snapple from various labeling practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of monies paid for product and treble damages. The company has filed a motion to dismiss the Weiner case on a variety of grounds. The Weiner case is currently stayed pending the outcome of the Holk case, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Plano, Texas-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. -- http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/-- formerly CSAB Inc, is an integrated refreshment beverage business, marketing more than 50 beverage brands throughout North America. In addition to its flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio includes 7UP, Mott's, A&W, Sunkist Soda, Hawaiian Punch, Canada Dry, Schweppes, RC Cola, Diet Rite, Rose's, Clamato, Mr & Mrs T, Holland House mixers and other consumer favorites. Based in Plano, Texas, the company has 24 bottling and manufacturing facilities, and 250 distribution centers across the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. It operates in four segments: Beverage Concentrates, Finished Goods, Bottling Group, and Mexico and the Caribbean. HEALTHONE: Faces Colo. Litigation Over the Hepatitis C Scare ------------------------------------------------------------ HealthOne and its former employee Kristen Parker are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Denver District Court over the Colorado Hepatitis C scare, CBS4 reports. The suit was filed by Bernadette Romero. Ms. Romero said she had surgery at Rose Medical Center in Denver in February and recently received a letter advising her to be tested for Hepatitis C. She said she has been tested, but is still awaiting the results. Ms. Parker is facing federal charges after admitting to switching her dirty needles with ones in hospital operating rooms to obtain the drug Fentanyl, according to CBS4. The lawsuit is asking the court to take over the supervision of the testing of patients to see if they have contracted Hepatitis C, which Ms. Parker was found to have tested positive. It asks the court to designate the estimated 4,700 people who underwent surgery at Rose while Mr. Parker worked there as a class in the lawsuit. The court is also being asked to make sure all members of that class are properly notified of the need for testing, CBS4 reported. The suit claims Rose failed to conduct a reasonable background investigation of Ms. Parker and failed to protect patients from being infected from diseases as a result of activities of infected hospital personnel, reports CBS4. HMS FINANCIAL: Faces Investors' Suit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- HMS Financial is facing a class-action lawsuit filed by lawyers for the investors who say the company was running a high dollar Ponzi scheme, ctvcalgary.ca reports. Hundreds of Albertans lost over CAD$20 million in the financial scheme, which collapsed in 2004. Despite the collapse, investors still haven't been able to get any of their money back, according to ctvcalgary.ca. JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged TARP Exploitation ---------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A are facing a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses them of exploiting the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) by promising distressed homeowners loan modifications under the program, demanding a large upfront fee for appraisals and then refusing the loan, Maria Dinzeo of The Courthouse News Service reports. The lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under the caption, "Stevens v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv- 03116." "These programs were set up to assist homeowners that were in danger of foreclosure of their home, and customers are encouraged by both the federal government and the defendants to apply for one of the home loan modification programs," according to the lead plaintiff Randall Stevens, The Courthouse News Service reported. However, Mr. Stevens says Chase Bank has "turned the up-front loan modification fees taken from the unqualified customers into a profit center, thereby putting these customers into an even worse financial position than they were before applying for the loan modification program," reports The Courthouse News Service. The plaintiff -- represented by Richard McCune of McCune & Wright -- demands restitution and punitive damages for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, according to The Courthouse News Service. For more details, contact: Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq. (rdm@mccunewright.com) McCuneWright LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Phone: 909-557-1250 Fax: 909-557-1275 JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Payment Protector Plan" --------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. Are facing a purported class-action lawsuit claiming that they are abusing their so-called "Payment Protector Plan" by calling in loans and canceling enrollment for customers who are supposed to be protected by the plan, Karina Brown of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on July 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Christopher York and Jennifer Harris, under the caption, "Christopher York et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-04976." Chase claims that the "Payment Protector Plan" protects credit cardholders who have lost their jobs or suffered a disability by freezing their monthly payments while Chase charges extra monthly fees. But if customers seek the protection that Chase claims to offer the Bank cancels the accounts and demands immediate payment in full, the suit claims, according to The Courthouse News Service. The plaintiffs -- represented by Ingrid Evans, Esq. of Waters Kraus & Paul -- seek restitution of the monthly charges they paid for the payment protector plan, plus interest, The Courthouse News Service reported. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f68 For more details, contact: Ingrid M. Evans, Esq. (ievans@waterskraus.com) Waters Kraus and Paul LLP 601 Van Ness Suite 2080 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: 415-296-6060 Fax: 214-777-0470 - and - Daniel Bryden, Esq. Sprenger & Lang PLLC 310 Fourth Avenue S Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612-486-1819 Fax: 612-871-9270 LENDER PROCESSING: Unit Faces 13 Suits Over Illegal Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- One of Lender Processing Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries, National Title Insurance of New York, Inc., continues to be named in 13 putative class action lawsuits, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The cases are styled as: -- "Barton v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 10, 2008; -- "Gentilcore v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 11, 2008; -- "Martinez v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 18, 2008; -- "Swick v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 19, 2008; -- "Davis v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, on March 20, 2008; -- "Pepe v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 21, 2008; -- "Kornbluth v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 24, 2008; -- "Lamb v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 24, 2008; -- "Blackwell v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 11, 2008; -- "Magana v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 4, 2008; -- "Moynahan v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 10, 2008; -- "Romero v. National Title Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 14, 2008; and -- "Doolittle, Susan v. National Insurance of New York, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California on July 25, 2008. The complaints in these lawsuits are substantially similar and allege that the title insurance underwriters named as defendants, including National Title Insurance of New York, Inc., engaged in illegal price fixing as well as market allocation and division that resulted in higher title insurance prices for consumers. The complaints seek treble damages in an amount to be proved at trial and an injunction against the defendants from engaging in any anti-competitive practices under the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state statutes. A motion was filed before the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to consolidate and/or coordinate these actions in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. However, that motion was denied. The cases have been consolidated before one district court judge in each of California and New Jersey and scheduled for the filing of consolidated complaints and motion practice. Motions to dismiss have been filed and are pending in respect of each complaint. Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com/-- is a provider of integrated technology and outsourced services to the mortgage lending industry, with capabilities in mortgage processing and default management services in the U.S. The company's technology solutions include its mortgage processing system. Its outsourced services include default management services, which are used by mortgage lenders and servicers, and its loan facilitation services, which support most aspects of the closing of mortgage loan transactions to national lenders and loan servicers. LPS conducts its operations through two segments: technology, data and analytics, and loan transaction services. MANUEL E. SOLIS: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Bogus "R.O.I." Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel E. Solis, Esq., an immigration attorney is facing a purported class-action lawsuit accusing him of cheating clients by selling a bogus "R.O.I." program, which "purports" to be "an insurance program" and a "prepaid legal services program," Cameron Langford of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on July 14, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas by Daisy Y. Jiminez Pinto de Saldana, Miguel Angel Cruz Parilla and Maria de la Luz Hernandez Martinez, under the caption, "Jiminez Pinto de Saldana et al v. Solis et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00168." It also named as defendant, Jessica Y. Prado According to his clients, Mr. Solis has charged "hundreds, if not thousands" of Spanish-speakers for the essentially worthless program, which they believe, falsely, will protect them from deportation, reports The Courthouse News Service. The suit accuses Mr. Solis of deceptive trade. Clients say they are charged from $360 to $600 for the R.O.I. contract that guarantees them legal representation if they are detained, and a document that tells border agents they have an attorney. Although this type of form, called an amparo letter, has a legal purpose in Latin American countries, the letters Mr. Solis issues are useless, the suit claims. The plaintiffs -- represented by Marlene Dougherty, Esq. -- say Mr. Solis' office then encourages clients to buy other services, such as freedom of information requests (for $300), and records management assistance, according to The Courthouse News Service. The complaint states, "Some of the other services are also not real services, e.g. retyping a physician's letter to Border Patrol to allow free passage at the checkpoint for medical care onto law firm letterhead and rewording it so it is from the law office -- $250. This letter also has a purpose that is counter to the R.O.I. program. The letter offers free passage at the immigration checkpoint to accompany a sick child to see a medical specialist, R.O.I. offers hope that they will be detained by CBP so they may obtain their legal permanent residency through Cancellation of Removal in immigration court." "Clients are signed up for ROI even if they have a prior deportation, or other type of removal. The client's immigration status is not evaluated to find a solution to the immigrant's current immigration problem. Many immigrants are being placed at risk because they believe that they are being protected from removal with the R.O.I. Program. The immigration bar has been queried by potential clients, as to whether they do the R.O.I. program, or not, many consumers believe it is a new immigration benefit," according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Courthouse News Service. The complaint further states, "Hundreds, if not thousands, of undocumented Spanish speaking immigrants most who are undereducated, of low economic status, and have signed up for the R.O.I. program. The class claims are common in that individuals paid for legal services in the form of R.O.I. and their individual cases have not been thoroughly reviewed for current forms of relief available to them, if any, and they believe they are protected by R.O.I." The suit seeks legal counsel to review their immigration cases, an injunction prohibiting Solis from charging for an amparo letter, plus damages and costs, The Courthouse News Service reported. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3f67 For more details, contact: Marlene A. Dougherty, Esq. (mdimmigrationatty@sbcglobal.net) Attorney at Law 314 E 8TH Street Brownsville, TX 78520 Phone: 956-542-7108 Fax: 956-542-7109 MULTIPLE LISTING: Faces Antitrust Litigation in South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head Island, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a Beaufort County real estate agent, who is accusing it of unlawfully restraining competition among brokers to the detriment of consumers, Josh McCann of The Hilton Head Island Packet reports. The suit was filed on July 7, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina by Roger L. Abney of the Roger Abney Co., under the caption, "Abney et al v. Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head Island Inc et al., Case No. 9:2009-cv-01794." It also lists several unnamed defendants as "John Does 1-8." Mr. Abney of the Roger Abney Co. alleges in the suit that the MLS excluded brokers who would charge consumers lower fees. He is requesting class-action status and a jury trial, according to The Hilton Head Island Packet. "Taken together, MLS rules limit competition among brokers, thus artificially inflating and stabilizing the price of real-estate brokerage service and deterring innovation and the emergence of new brokerage business models," according to the suit. A multiple listing service combines the property listings of member brokers into a shared database. The public has limited access to the MLS to search properties for sale. The Hilton Head MLS is a nonprofit organization that has about 1,400 members in Beaufort, Jasper, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Hampton and Orangeburg counties, The Hilton Head Island Packet reported. The suit lists several types of brokers it says "don't exist in the MLS Service Area" because of the MLS' actions. In other markets, some brokers use technology to avoid office expenses and pass savings onto customers, the suit states. Others work for flat fees or lower sales commissions than traditional brokers. Consumers in the Hilton Head area "had fewer choices among types of brokers and paid higher fees for those services than customers in other areas of the country," the lawsuit states, reports The Hilton Head Island Packet. For more details, contact: John Gressette Felder, Jr., Esq. (jfelder@mcgowanhood.com) McGowan Hood and Felder 1517 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: 803-779-0100 - and - Jesse Allen Kirchner, Esq. (jkirchner@tktylawfirm.com) Thurmond Kirchner and Timbes PA 15 Mid-Atlantic Wharf Suite 101 Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: 843-937-8000 Fax: 843-937-4200 NBC UNIVERSAL: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Diaz" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit filed by three former special agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration against NBC Universal, Inc. over the Denzel Washington-Russell Crowe film "American Gangster," Chad Bray of Dow Jones Newswires. The suit was filed on Jan. 16, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption, "Diaz et al v. NBC Universal, Inc., Case No. 1:2008-cv-00401." The Courthouse News Service previously reported that plaintiffs Louis Diaz, Gregory Korniloff and Jack Toal filed the class- action complaint in New York District Court against NBC Universal claiming it defamed New York agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in the movie "American Gangster," (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 18, 2008). They claim that NBC falsely insinuated that most of the agents in that bureau were convicted criminals. The plaintiffs demand $55 million. Specifically, the lawsuit, which was seeking class-action status on behalf of 400 present and former DEA agents in New York, alleged that the movie falsely claims that three-quarters of "New York City's Drug Enforcement Agency," from 1973 to 1985, were convicted of a crime, according to Dow Jones Newswires. It contended that no agent of New York City's DEA or any other law-enforcement officer was convicted of anything based on cooperation by Frank Lucas, who was portrayed by Mr. Washington in the movie. The plaintiffs also alleged the film falsely represented the role played by New Jersey detective Richard Roberts, who was portrayed by Mr. Crowe, reports Dow Jones Newswires. The suit was later dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That decision was later appealed by the plaintiffs. In a summary order issued on July 16, 2009, however, the Second Circuit rejected a bid by the former agents to revive the suit, saying that the size of the proposed class of agents made it impossible for a jury to find "that the allegedly libelous statements refer to them as individuals," as the libelous reference only referred to some of the proposed class, Dow Jones Newswires reported. "And the storyline of the film only strengthens this conclusion since several scenes, vignettes and voiceovers describe the corrupt officers portrayed as members of the Special Investigations Unit, the 'SIU,' which the film indicates, and appellants conceded below, is a unit of the New York City Police Department, the 'NYPD,' a non-federal entity," the three-judge panel found, Dow Jones Newswires reports. For more details, contact: Dominic F. Amorosa, Esq. (lawoffices@dfamorosa.com) Dominic Amorosa 521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 New York, NY 10175 Phone: (212) 406-7000 Fax: 212-233-7805 Michael Quinn Carey, Esq. (MQC@CareyLitigation.com) Carey & Associates, L.L.C.,(NYC) 521 Fifth Avenue Suite 3300 New York, NY 10175-3399 Phone: 212-758-0076 Fax: 212-758-0069 - and - Robert D. Balin, Esq. (robbalin@dwt.com) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (NYC) 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212 489-8230 Fax: 212 489-8340 NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE: Still Faces Suit Over Acquisition Offers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. and its Board of Directors continue to face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the company's management breached its fiduciary duties by not properly considering two offers to buy Northstar, according to its May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On July 17, 2008, a putative class-action complaint was filed against the company's Board of Directors in the King County, Washington Superior Court. The lawsuit was filed by an alleged shareholder of the company, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. It alleges, among other things, that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with two alleged acquisition offers for the company. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs, but does not seek direct monetary damages from the company. Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. -- http://www.northstarneuro.com/- - is a development stage medical device company. The company is focused on developing and commercializing neuromodulation therapies to restore function of life for people suffering from neurological diseases and disorders. Its Renova Cortical Stimulation System is designed to deliver targeted electrical stimulation to the cortex, the outermost layer of the brain, in a process called cortical stimulation. ONTARIO: Faces CAD$2B Litigation Over Alleged Abuses at HRC ----------------------------------------------------------- The province of Ontario is facing a purported class-action suit that seeks CAD$2 billion in connection with abuses allegedly suffered by residents of the Huronia Regional Center (HRC), Frank Matys of Alliston Herald reports. According to a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, residents of the Memorial Avenue facility were emotionally, physically and psychologically traumatized by their experiences at the facility. Celeste Poltak and her firm, Koskie Minsky LLP, are representing two former residents and their guardians in the case, which names the province and the HRC as defendants. Marie Slark and Patricia Seth, who were former residents, were named as plaintiffs in the case, according to Alliston Herald. The claim charges that the province did nothing to protect residents after being made aware of the abuses, which are said to have included sexual abuse, physical violence and the use of nausea-inducing drugs as punishment. The claim, if allowed to proceed, would include all residents of the facility between 1876 and 2008, as well as their families, Alliston Herald reported. The proposed class-action lawsuit seeks CAD$1 billion in punitive damages and CAD$1 billion for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The court must decide whether it is appropriate for the case to be treated as a class-action before certification is granted and the matter is allowed to proceed. A motion for certification is scheduled to be heard in March 2010, reports Alliston Herald. The proposed class-action case additionally charges that residents were denied adequate medical care, were forced to work without proper compensation and were left in the hands of unqualified caregivers, according to a report by Alliston Herald. PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Approves $55.95M Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Roger R. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California preliminarily approved the six settling outside directors' $55.95 million settlement of the claims pending against them in the securities class-action lawsuit against Peregrine Systems, Inc., according to a posting by Kevin M. LaCroix of The D & O Diary. In May 2002 plaintiffs filed securities class-action lawsuits against Peregrine and other defendants, including certain directors and officers of Peregrine. Peregrine itself filed for bankruptcy in September 2002 and was dropped from the suit. On April 5, 2004, following an initial round of motions, the plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint. The complaint alleges that Peregrine materially overstated its revenues and earnings during the class period due to the company's failure to recognize revenue properly. Peregrine ultimately issued restatements of its financial statements for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The restatement reduced previously reported revenue of $1.34 billion by $509 million, of which, according to the SEC's separate civil enforcement complaint against Peregrine, "at least $259 million was reversed because the underlying transactions lacked substance." Several Peregrine officers, including the company's CEO and CFO, entered guilty pleas in connection with the criminal investigations of Peregrine, according to The D & O Diary posting. In July 29 2006, the parties to the class-action lawsuit announced a partial settlement in the amount of $56.3 million on behalf of certain settling defendants. As part of the July 2006 settlement, and as reflected further here, Arthur Anderson agreed to pay $30 million; former officer Douglas Powanda agreed to pay $4.675 million; former director William D. Savoy agreed to pay $5.1 million; and former director Thomas Watrous agreed to pay $500,000. The July 2006 settlement also included certain amounts received in bankruptcy from the company. In November 2006, Judge Benitez approved the July 2006 settlement. The case proceeded against the non-settling defendants. On Feb. 9, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion (here) for approval additional settlements with the remaining individual defendants, six former outside directors (John J, Moores, Charles E. Noell III, Norris vandenBerg, Richard A. Horshey II, Christopher Cole, and Rodney Dammeyer), and four former officers (Stephen P Garner, Mattew C. Gless, Frederic B. Luddy, and Richard T. Nelson), according to The D & O Diary posting. One of the settling directors, John Moores, was Peregrine's chairman from 1990 to July 2000 and from May 2002 through March 2003. For a time, Mr. Moores owned the San Diego Padres major league baseball team. During his years on Peregrine's Board, Mr. Moores sold over $600 million worth of Peregrine stock. According to The D & O Diary posting, accompanying the Feb. 9, 2009 motion were two settlement stipulations, one each with respect to the two groups of defendants. The settlement stipulation with respect to the outside director defendants is dated December 2008 and reflects the six outside director defendants' agreement to pay a total of $55.95 million toward settlement. The settlement stipulation with respect to the four officer defendants provides that defendant Mr. Luddy will pay $100,000 and defendant Nelson will pay $25,000. The stipulation provides further that defendants Mr. Gardner and Mr. Gless "shall note be required to pay any cash in light of their current financial condition and, as to Gardner, the fact that the forfeitures obtained from him in the criminal case...may be distributed" to claimants. In Judge Benitez's July 13 order, he preliminarily approved these two proposed settlement, subject to a final determination at a hearing scheduled for Oct. 16, 2009, The D & O Diary posting states. PHILADELPHIA POLICE: Faces Pa. Litigation Over "Domelights.com" --------------------------------------------------------------- The Philadelphia Police Department is facing a purported class- action lawsuit over accusations of racism on a Web site run by a Philadelphia police sergeant, Fox 29 reports. The suit was filed on July 5, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by The Guardian Civic League, Inc., National Association for Advancement of Colored People, Philadelphia Branch and National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, under the caption, "The Guardian Civic League, Inc. et al v. Philadelphia Police Department et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-03148-CMR." The Guardian Civic League, which represents black police officers in the department, filed the suit against the PPD over the popular Web site http://www.Domelights.com,which they claim is racist and creating a hostile workplace for black and minority police officers, according to Fox 29. Domelights.com, which is widely read by police officers, the media and some city officials, is a Web site that is supposed to be a place to discuss any and all Philadelphia police issues, reports Fox 29. However, the lawsuit alleges the site has also become a haven for racists who post offensive comments, Fox 29 reported. For more details, contact: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esq. (brm@milandstal.com) Mildenberg & Stalbaum PC 123 S. Broad St. Suite 1610 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: 215-545-4870 PROSPER.COM: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of Unregistered Securities --------------------------------------------------------------- Prosper.com, a P2P (peer-to-peer) lender based in San Francisco is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California, Peter J. Brennan of Bloomberg News reports. The class-action lawsuit, which was filed last November in San Francisco, accused the company of selling unregistered securities that caused plaintiffs to suffer losses, according to Bloomberg News. ROYAL BANK: European Pensions Funds Included in N.Y. Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- European pension funds will be included as members of a consolidated class-action lawsuit against Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), after a court ruling knocked them out of the running to be co-lead plaintiffs, Giovanni Legorano of Global Pensions reports. In a recently filed motion, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC sought to include U.K. schemes Merseyside Pension Fund and North Yorkshire County Council pension fund and Dutch investor MN Services among several other non-U.S. Investors as members of the case, according to Global Pensions. Raquel Pichardo-Allison of Global Pensions previously reported that the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board (MassPRIM) and the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) have been named lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the Royal Bank of Scotland (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2009). According to a press release by plaintiffs' counsel, the litigation in general alleges RBS "falsely reassured investors that RBS was well capitalized when, in fact, the company was effectively insolvent as a result of impaired assets, bad loans, and its disastrous partial acquisition of ABN AMRO," Global Pensions reported. The law firm Labaton Sucharow, will represent the Mississippi pension fund along with Wolf Popper LLP. Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC will represent MassPRIM, according to the Global Pensions report. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York also appointed Freeman Group, made up of a small group of investors that lost a combined $444,000, as co-lead plaintiff to represent the preferred share purchasers. They will be represented by law firm Girard Gibbs, reports Global Pensions. The lawsuit alleges that the Royal Bank of Scotland falsely reassured investors the bank was well capitalized when, in fact, the bank was effectively insolvent as a result of impaired assets, bad loans and its disastrous partial acquisition of ABN AMRO. It further alleges that the revelation of this deception led to a catastrophic collapse in the bank's share values as, on January 19, 2009, Royal Bank of Scotland announced that it expected to lose approximately GBP28 billion in 2008, in large part due to the write-off of goodwill associated with ABN as well as charges associated with bad loans. These write-offs resulted in the biggest loss in British corporate history. The consolidated case is captioned "In re Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-300 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y.)." In the consolidated action, lead plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against the Royal Bank of Scotland, its underwriters, and certain members of the bank's current and former directors and officers. The lead plaintiffs represent a proposed class of all persons and entities, including European investors, who acquired the publicly traded securities of Royal Bank of Scotland, preferred shares, or other securities between June 6, 2007 and Jan. 9, 2009. For more details, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cohenmilstein.com) Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq. (jreiser@cohenmilstein.com) Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Phone: 888-240-0775 and 202-408-4600 WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Settle Mass. Hourly Workers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. lost a bid to settle a class-action lawsuit in a Massachusetts workers' pay dispute after plaintiffs' lawyers claimed the company reached a secret deal with attorneys who were no longer active in the case, Bloomberg News reports. The lawsuit, known as "Salvas v. Wal-Mart Stores," was filed by hourly workers who claimed that managers required them to work off-the-clock and denied or cut short breaks. The company had agreed to settle the lawsuit for as much as $40 million and sought preliminary court approval, according to Bloomberg News. However, Judge Thomas Murtagh of the Massachusetts Superior Court refused to grant preliminary approval and appointed Carolyn Burton, Esq., who objected to the settlement, as lead attorney for the plaintiffs. A trial is scheduled for Oct. 5, 2009, Bloomberg News reported. ZUMIEZ INC: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages for $1.3M -------------------------------------------------------------- Zumiez, Inc. settled a class-action suit in California regarding overtime pay and meal breaks for $1.3 million, Puget Sound Business Journal reports. The class-action suit covers Zumiez employees, except store managers, who worked in California from March 5, 2004 to Sept. 13, 2009, according to Puget Sound Business Journal. It was previously reported that the company faces a putative class-action complaint styled, "Evan Johnson v. Zumiez, Inc., et al., Case No. RG08374968," which is pending in Alameda County Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009). On March 5, 2008, a former employee commenced the action against the company in California state court alleging that the company failed to pay all overtime wages owing to him and other employees in California, failed to provide meal breaks as required by California law, failed to provide employees with proper itemized wage statements (pay stubs) as required by California law, and failed to pay terminated employees waiting time penalties under California Labor Code section 203. The plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint, which added an additional claim that employees under age 18 worked more hours than permitted by the Labor Code; the first amended complaint also seeks to recover penalties under the Private Attorney General Act for alleged violation of various Labor Code sections. The suit was filed as a putative class action, but no motion requesting certification of the case as a class action has been filed. The company has filed an answer to the first amended complaint and discovery is being conducted. No trial date has been set, according to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009. Zumiez, Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com-- is a specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and accessories. Its stores cater to young men and women between ages 12-24, focusing on skateboarding, surfing, snowboarding, motocross and BMX. As of April 4, 2009, it operates 350 stores, which are primarily located in shopping malls. New Securities Fraud Cases COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Comtech Telecommunications Corp. NASDAQ: CMTL) between September 17, 2008 and March 9, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Comtech and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: -- Comtech was experiencing negative trends in its commercial satellite earth station and encoder bookings, as well as commercial RF Amplifier bookings; -- that the Company's sales from its Mobile Data Communications division were weakening outside of its one order with the U.S. Army's Movement Tracking System ("MTS"); -- that Comtech was experiencing difficulty integrating the Radyne acquisition and was not generating the synergies expected from the acquisition; and -- that the Company's costs were rising in excess of internal forecasts reducing profit margins. On March 9, 2009, Comtech announced its financial results for the fiscal second quarter of 2009 and a drastic reduction in its revenue and earnings guidance for 2009. On this news, Comtech stock fell $12.97 to close at $22.48 per share. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 14, 2009. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/ OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Oppenheimer AMT-Free New York Municipals (Nasdaq: OPNYX) (Nasdaq: ONYBX) (Nasdaq: ONYCX) between May 1, 2006 and October 21, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges the defendants of violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Fund's failure to disclose in the prospectus and other sales materials employed in selling and marketing the Fund that the Fund employed strategies designed to enhance its reported returns while, at the same time, these strategies exposed the Fund to much greater risk of price decline in the value of it portfolio securities in the event of illiquidity in the market for municipal securities that these strategies exposed the Fund to greater risk of loss should the Fund be forced to sell large blocks of portfolio at disadvantageous times at prices reduced from those at which the securities were previously carried on the Fund's books. The Fund's shares declined significantly, according to the complaint, when these risks materialized. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Aug. 7, 2009. For more details, contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com) Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Phone: 212-697-6484 Web site: http://www.bgandg.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 * * *