/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090730.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 149 Headlines BAXTER INT'L: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Blood Plasma Products BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Minn. Lawsuit Over "WWJD" Motto Dismissed CA INC: Mulls Renewed Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suits in N.Y. CASH AMERICA: "Alfeche" Lawsuit Over Lending Activities Pending CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending CASH AMERICA: Oct. 13 Status Hearing Set for Payday Loans Suit E.I. DUPONT: Faces Lawsuit Over Changes Affecting Pension Funds EBAY INC: N.Y. Judge Transfers Litigation Over "Coins" to Calif. FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval HALLIBURTON CO: Denied Class Status in Securities Suit on Appeal HORIZON REALTY: Sued for Violations of the Landlord-Tenant Law INDIANA: Court Awards $42M to Current, Former State Employees IMMUCOR INC: To Defend Suits Over Price-Fixing of Blood Reagents IOMEDIX COLD: Oct. 20 Hearing Set for "Salcido" Suit Settlement KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Consolidated Lawsuit LA SALLE COUNTY: Appeals Court Affirms Decision in Ill. Lawsuit LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Settle Suits Over Monogram Agreement MASSACHUSETTS: Lawyers, Tollpayers Urge Settlement in MTA Suit MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Court Dismisses "DeBlasio" Cash Sweep Suit MOODY'S INVESTORS: Faces Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Settles FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Mass. PELEPHONE: Faces Litigation in Israel for Saving Text Messages SANTA MONICA: Faces Homeless Residents' Civil Rights Litigation SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY: Reaches $4.2M Deal for Workers' Lawsuit SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeal to Class Status in ERISA Suit Pending SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Third-Party Payors' Lawsuits SCHERING-PLOUGH: Defends Lawsuits Over Cholesterol Joint Venture SCHERING-PLOUGH: Inks Settlement in Merck Shareholders Lawsuit SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Ruling on K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuit Pending SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settlement Deal on Merger Suit Inked on July 23 SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settlement of Securities Suit Under Advisement SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif. TELEMAR NORTE: Faces Suit for Breaking Customer-Service Rules UNITED STATES: Faces Minn. Litigation Over HAMP, Foreclosures UNITIL CORP: To Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint in Mass. New Securities Fraud Cases NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Kendall Law Group Announces Suit Filing ********* BAXTER INT'L: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Blood Plasma Products ------------------------------------------------------------- A Baxter International, Inc. (BAX) hospital customer filed a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the company and a competitor conspired to control supplies and prices of plasma- derived medical products, Jon Kamp of Dow Jones Newswires reports. The company, in a brief note in a 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, said a hospital customer filed suit with the allegations against Baxter and another company, which Baxter didn't name, on July 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, reports Dow Jones Newswires. The suit alleged "that Baxter and a competitor conspired to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma- derived therapies since late 2004," according to the company. "The complaint attempts to state a claim for class action relief and demands treble damages," it adds, according to Dow Jones Newswires. Eli Greenblat of The Age previously reported that CSL Ltd., CSL Behring LLC and Baxter International, Inc. are facing a purported antitrust class-action lawsuit accusing Australia's biggest health-care company, CSL, and its main rival, Baxter International, of a conspiracy to fix the prices of life-saving blood plasma products (Class Action Reporter, July 21, 2009). The suit was filed on July 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Pemiscot Memorial Hospital, under the caption, "Pemiscot Memorial Hospital v. CSL Limited, et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-03143." Pemiscot Memorial, a small publicly owned hospital in Missouri, which services several counties in the south-eastern part of the state, alleges CSL and Baxter had illegal agreements to restrict supply and push up prices through co-ordinating their individual output, according to The Age. The hospital is relying heavily on the statements and findings of the FTC in June that claimed that CSL, Talecris Therapeutics, and Baxter operated as a "tight oligopoly" and had learned they could maximize profits if each company did its part to pull back on supply to avoid driving prices lower. According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Age, "Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired, combined or contracted to restrict output and to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of blood plasma proteins that they sold to (the) plaintiff and the other class members during the class period." The plaintiff said that because of this conspiracy, blood plasma prices were higher than they otherwise would have been. "The restriction of supply and increase in prices was not the result of natural market forces. Rather, they were caused by defendants' conspiracy, which defendants formed in response to the excess supply that occurred earlier in the decade and that defendants did not want to experience again," the complaint states. The Age reported that Pemiscot Memorial's complaint seeks to represent U.S. buyers of blood plasma proteins from October 1, 2004, to the present. The complaint has asked the court for a jury trial. It is also seeking unspecified damages, reports The Age. For more details, contact: Marc I. Machiz, Esq. (mmachiz@cohenmilstein.com) Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, P.L.L.C. 255 South 17th Street Suite 1307 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-773-4680 BULLSEYE COLLECTION: Minn. Lawsuit Over "WWJD" Motto Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal class action lawsuit against Bullseye Collection Agency (Bullseye), which challenged Bullseye's "WWJD" business motto, has now been dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs in that suit, Mark and Sara Neill, claimed they were harassed and oppressed when they received a collection letter from Bullseye that contained the same "WWJD" motto that Bullseye includes on all of its business communications. Of course, far from being oppressive, WWJD is an acronym that sometimes means "What Would Jesus Do?" Bullseye, a small, family-owned business, uses the motto as a reminder to act with diligence and respect in an industry traditionally characterized by ruthlessness and incivility. Instead of abandoning its motto or giving up its constitutional rights, Bullseye fought back with Liberty Counsel's assistance. Bullseye argued that "WWJD" is not oppressive as a matter of law and cannot violate the law. Bullseye also argued that if any law actually prohibits the benign and courteous use of "WWJD" as a business motto, then such law is unconstitutional, because it violates Bullseye's freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equal protection rights. In addition to vigorously defending Bullseye, Liberty Counsel also filed a comprehensive counterclaim against the Neills and another company, Bureau of Collection Recovery, LLC (BCR). Bullseye discovered that Mr. Neill was no stranger to the collection business but was the president of BCR, a giant competitor collection company with offices in the United States and India. Bullseye alleged that the Neills and BCR abused the legal process and engaged in a conspiracy to harm Bullseye competitively and to deprive Bullseye of its constitutional rights. Upon receiving Bullseye's counterclaim, the Neills decided to abandon their frivolous crusade against Bullseye. They dismissed with prejudice each of their claims, such that they can never bring them again in any court. As a result, Bullseye remains free to use "WWJD" on its stationery, and its constitutional rights remain intact. Horatio Mihet, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, stated, "Neither the law nor the courtroom provides refuge for those wishing to harm others with their intolerance of Christian viewpoints. Christian men and women in business need not check their faith at the door of the marketplace." The suit was filed on Oct. 22, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the of Minnesota by Sara Neill and Mark Neill, under the caption, "Neill et al v. Bullseye Collection Agency, Inc., Case No. 0:2008-cv-05800," (Class Action Reporter, June 22, 2009). For more details, contact: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. (tommycjc@aol.com) Consumer Justice Center, PA 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Phone: 651-770-9707 Fax: 651-704-0907 Stephen M. Crampton, Esq. (scrampton@lc.org) Liberty Counsel PO Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32854 Phone: 800-671-1776 - and - Patrick M. O'Donnell, Esq. (pato.spo@tds.net) Smith Paulson O'Donnell & Associates P.O. Box 668 Monticello, MN 55362-0668 Phone: 763-295-2107 Fax: 763-295-5165 (fax) CA INC: Mulls Renewed Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suits in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- CA, Inc. may renew its motion to dismiss stockholder class- action lawsuits against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, according to its July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The company, its former Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang, its former Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar, its former Chief Financial Officer Ira Zar, and its Vice Chairman and Founder Russell M. Artzt were defendants in one or more stockholder class-action lawsuits filed in July 1998, February 2002, and March 2002 in the Federal Court, alleging, among other things, that a class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's Common Stock during the period from Jan. 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998 were harmed by misleading statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the Company's future financial performance. In addition, in May 2003, a class-action lawsuit captioned, "John A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et al.," was filed in the Federal Court. The complaint in this matter, a purported class action on behalf of the CA Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the participants in, and beneficiaries of, the CASH Plan for a class period from March 30, 1998 through May 30, 2003, asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The named defendants were the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative Committee of the CASH Plan, and certain current or former employees and/or former directors of the Company: Messrs. Wang, Kumar, Zar, Artzt, Peter A. Schwartz, and Charles P. McWade; and various unidentified alleged fiduciaries of the CASH Plan. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount. On Aug. 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of the class-action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors, alleging misleading statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the Company's financial performance, as well as breaches of fiduciary duty. As part of the class action settlement, which was approved by the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company agreed to issue a total of up to 5.7 million shares of Common Stock to the stockholders represented in the three class action lawsuits, including payment of attorneys' fees. The Company has completed the issuance of the settlement shares as well as payment of US$3.3 million to the plaintiffs' attorneys in legal fees and related expenses. On Dec. 7, 2004, a motion to vacate the Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in connection with the settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder lawsuits was filed by the Wyly Litigants. The motion sought to reopen the settlement to permit the moving stockholders to pursue individual claims against certain present and former officers of the Company. The motion stated that the moving stockholders did not seek to file claims against the Company. In a memorandum and order dated Aug. 2, 2007, the Federal Court denied all of the 60(b) Motions and reaffirmed the 2003 settlements. On Aug. 24, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the August 2 decision. On Aug. 16, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to amend or clarify the August 2 decision, and the Company joined that motion. On Sept. 12 and Oct. 4, 2007, the Federal Court issued opinions denying the motions to amend or clarify. On Sept. 18, 2007, the Wyly Litigants filed notices of appeal of the September 12 decision. The Company filed notices of cross-appeal of the September 12 and October 4 decisions on Nov. 2, 2007. On July 28, 2008, the Wyly Litigants served their opening briefs. On Sept. 11, 2008, the Company filed its brief in opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals. Also on Sept. 11, 2008, current CA director The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato and former CA directors Richard Grasso, Shirley Strum Kenny, Jay Lorsch, Roel Pieper, Lewis Ranieri, Walter Schuetze, Willem F.P. de Vogel and Charles Wang filed briefs in opposition to the Wyly Litigants' appeals. On Oct. 9, 2008, the Wyly Litigants filed a reply brief in support of their appeals in the class actions. Oral argument on the Wyly Litigants' appeals and cross-appeals occurred on March 11, 2009, and decisions are pending. On July 23, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the August 2, September 12 and October 4, 2007 decisions of the Federal Court. The summary order also acknowledged that the Ranger Governance litigation that was part of the 2004 Derivative Actions was not before the Second Circuit and, therefore, the company could renew its motion to dismiss and realign that had been dismissed without prejudice in the Oct. 29, 2007. Islandia, N.Y.-based CA, Inc. -- http://www.ca.com/-- provides tools for managing networks, databases, applications, storage, security, and other systems. CASH AMERICA: "Alfeche" Lawsuit Over Lending Activities Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit filed by Peter Alfeche against Cash America International, Inc., among others, is still at an early stage. On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche filed a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Cash America, Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC (CashNet Nevada), Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com (collectively, CashNetUSA). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's online payday lending activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and not in accordance with the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law or the licensing requirements of the CDCA. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including choice of law and arbitration provisions, are not authorized by Pennsylvania law. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of any compensatory damages. CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision located in the agreements governing the lending activities, and a hearing on the motion was held on July 1, 2009. On July 16, 2009, CashNetUSA filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt- Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp., which addresses the treatment of class action arbitrations under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court has not rendered its decision on the motions as of this date, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/ -- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing services and other specialty financial services to individuals. It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn lending operations. CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit filed by Yulon Clerk is still at an early stage, according to Cash America International, Inc.'s July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, against Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC (CashNet Nevada) and several other unrelated third-party lenders. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants' lending activities in Pennsylvania, including CashNet Nevada's online payday lending activities in Pennsylvania, were illegal and in violation of various Pennsylvania laws, including the Loan Interest Protection Law, the CDCA and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws. The complaint seeks payment of potential fines, unspecified damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of certain damages. The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the lawsuit now resides. The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge presiding in the Alfeche litigation. CashNet Nevada filed a motion with the federal court to enforce the arbitration provision located in the agreements governing the lending activities and has also filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt- Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp., which addresses the treatment of class action arbitrations under the Federal Arbitration Act. As of July 24, 2009, the date of the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, the court has not set a hearing or rendered decisions on the motions. Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/ -- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing services and other specialty financial services to individuals. It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn lending operations. CASH AMERICA: Oct. 13 Status Hearing Set for Payday Loans Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The propriety of class certification hearing in a purported class-action lawsuit against Cash America International, Inc. over payday loans has been set for Oct. 13, 2009. On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed the purported class action suit against Georgia Cash America, Inc.; Cash America International, Inc.; Daniel R. Feehan; and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America has been making illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The suit claims that Community State Bank is not the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that its involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration) was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision. The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings. The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to compel arbitration was rendered moot after the discovery sanction was handed down by the Court. The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review these orders and remanded the case to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2008). Discovery relating to the propriety of class certification is underway. The State Court set a hearing on the propriety of class certification for Oct. 13, 2009. The Court ordered that discovery directed at the merits of Plaintiff's claims be stayed until the Court issues its written decision regarding class certification. Cash America, in its July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, says the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit. The company is defending this lawsuit. Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/ -- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing services and other specialty financial services to individuals. It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn lending operations. E.I. DUPONT: Faces Lawsuit Over Changes Affecting Pension Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. and its pension fund DuPont Pension and Retirement Plan are facing a purported class- action lawsuit filed by The International Brotherhood of Dupont Workers who claim that company efforts to streamline its payroll system by hiring an outside contractor to manage it has led to workers' being shortchanged on their pension payments, Jane M. Von Bergen of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports. The federal lawsuit involves four DuPont Co. facilities, including Philadelphia's, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. Affected are about 500 employees, including as many as 100 from Philadelphia, who retired after July or Aug. 2008, or will retire as Dupont seeks voluntary retirements to reduce layoffs, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer. Before that, Dupont was able to accurately calculate pension benefits, according to the lawyer representing the union, Kenneth Henley, Esq. of Bala Cynwyd. The plaintiffs seek class- action status, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. For more details, contact: Kenneth Henley, Esq. One Bala Avenue, Suite 500 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (610)-660-7744 EBAY INC: N.Y. Judge Transfers Litigation Over "Coins" to Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles P. Sifton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York transferred the purported class- action lawsuit, "Universal Grading Service, John Callandrello, Joseph Komito and Vadim Kirichenko, vs. EBay, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-03557-CPS-RML," to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, David L. Ganz of Numismatic News reports. Law360 previously reported that the judge has decided to transfer a proposed antitrust class-action suit that claims eBay Inc. and several coin grading services took part in a scheme to oust small grading services from participating in the online marketplace for certified coins (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2009). On June 9, 2009, Judge Sifton chose not to dismiss the case, but opted to transfer it to another venue, according to Law360. Numismatic News previously reported that eBay, Inc., along with the American Numismatic Association, the Professional Numismatists Guild, and the ANA president's coin firm, are facing a purported class-action-lawsuit in New York federal court, alleging anti-competitive conduct (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008). The suit, styled, "Universal Grading Service, John Callandrello, Joseph Komito and Vadim Kirichenko, vs. EBay, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-03557-CPS-RML," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Aug. 29, 2008. There are four named plaintiffs in the case. They are: -- Universal Grading Service of New Jersey; -- John Callandrello, a UGS shareholder; -- Joseph Komito, a New Jersey coin dealer; and -- Vadim Kirichenko, a New York coin dealer. They claim damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of costs, interest and attorney's fees and permanent injunctive relief. Basis for the claim is an allegation of conduct "constituting violation of antitrust policies, as well as violation of anticompetitive conduct." There is also a claim for "civil conspiracy and trade libel" pursuant to New York common law. Under the rules of defamation, truth is an affirmative defense to trade libel, if the action complained of actually took place. The plaintiffs claim a "conspiracy between [Barry Suppler & Co., LLC], ANA, PNG and eBay to obstruct the ability of the smaller coin grading services to participate in the coin marketplace on eBay." The basis of the claim: In 2001, eBay "formed a group that became known as the 'Internet rules committee' made up of coin industry insiders, including Barry Stuppler, in his capacity as then ANA governor and chairman of the ANA Consumer Protection Committee (the precursor to the "Coins Community Watch Group"), Doug Winter, a PNG dealer, and R. Steven Ivy," of Heritage. The plaintiffs charge that through the effort of this group and others, PNG, in conjunction with the Industry Council for Tangible Assets and spearheaded by Mr. Stuppler, commissioned a survey of rare coin authentication and grading services, which it is claimed gave rise to false and damaging results because of insufficient data. With small grading companies like UGS never being referenced in 2006 Grading Service Survey, coupled with an eBay policy permitting "only coins that have been graded by five grading services (NGC, NCS, PCGS, ICG and ANACS) to be listed for sale on eBay as "certified" coins," the plaintiffs claim these actions are anti-competitive and illegal. The plaintiffs hope to prove that the policies are "destroying the competitive free market by prohibiting consumers and dealers from purchasing or dealing in certified coins graded from any coin grading service except for the ones listed in eBay's policy." According to Numismatic News, attorneys for the companies that claim to be besmirched brought it as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who comprise the ... "class." That includes "all companies and individuals who provide coin grading services on the market for coin auctions to the public at large and who have not been certified by eBay as "the authorized grading company" pursuant to eBay's Counterfeit Currency and Stamps policy and who are interested in pursuing this lawsuit." The class period is from January 2004 to the present. The lawsuit is also claiming that "eBay's policy enacted on Sept. 17, 2007 ... is per se unlawful because it limits the flow of goods in commerce." The suit is "Universal Grading Service et al v. EBay, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-03557-CPS-RML," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Charles P. Sifton, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marina Trubitsky, Esq. (dtcassociates@yahoo.com) Law Office of Marina Trubitsky 11 Broadway Suite 861 New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-732-7707 Fax: 212-732-7708 FASTENAL CO: Settlement of FLSA Suit Remains Subject to Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of a purported class-action litigation against Fastenal Co. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and several state statutes remains subject to court approval. On Aug. 29, 2008, the company announced that it had reached a preliminary agreement to settle a purported class-action lawsuit relating to the classification of its Assistant General Managers as exempt for purposes of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California, Oregon, and Pennsylvania state statutes. This suit also alleged that Assistant General Managers in California did not receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods under the California Labor Code. While the company denies the allegations underlying the lawsuit, it decided to enter into the settlement agreement in order to avoid significant legal fees, the uncertainty of a jury trial, distractions to its operations, and other expenses and management time that would have to be devoted to protracted litigation. The settlement, which is still subject to court approval, fully resolves all claims brought by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement, the company will make a cash payment of $10 million to cover claims by eligible class members, plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs, and payments to the named plaintiffs. The expense for this settlement was recorded in the results for the third quarter ending Sept. 30, 2008. The company expects payment to occur on this settlement during the second half of 2009, according to its July 24, 2009 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Fastenal Co. -- http://www.fastenal.com-- sells industrial and construction supplies in a wholesale and retail fashion. As of December 31, 2008, it operated 2,311 company-owned or leased store locations in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, the People's Republic of China, and the Netherlands. Fastenal's offerings are grouped into 10 product lines: fasteners; tools and equipment; cutting tools and abrasives; hydraulics, pneumatics, plumbing, and heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC); material handling, storage and packaging; janitorial supplies, chemicals and paints; electrical supplies; welding supplies; safety supplies, and metals, alloys and materials. HALLIBURTON CO: Denied Class Status in Securities Suit on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas' denial of a class-action status to a case against Halliburton Co. over securities law violations is on appeal. The class-action suit was filed in June 2002, against the company with the federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during the period starting approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002. The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not reasonably estimable or probable of collection, the report notes. In the weeks that followed the suit filing, approximately 20 similar class actions were commenced against the company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP -- the company's independent accountants for the period covered by the lawsuits -- and several of the company's present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar, Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore, Jr. The class-action suits were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, entitled "Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the company in April 2003. However, as a result of a later substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled, "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al." In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of Halliburton's 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. Settlement Attempts According to Reuters, a memorandum of understanding contemplated settlement of the Dresser claims as well as the original claims. In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Following the transfer of the case to another district judge, the court held that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate, denied the motion for final approval of the settlement, and ordered the parties to mediate. The mediation was unsuccessful. Motion to Dismiss Reuters recalls that in April 2005, the court appointed new co- lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the company file a motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. In March 2006, the report relates, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to replead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. AMSF then filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been replead. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007, the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than the company's CEO. The court ordered that the case proceed against Haliburton and the company's CEO. In June 2007, upon becoming aware of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued in that month, the court allowed further briefing on the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the company's CEO. The court again denied the motion to dismiss in March 2008. In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification, and the company's response was filed in November 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008). According to Reuters, the court decided that the lead plaintiff will have to pursue on its own the lawsuit, which claims Halliburton defrauded investors through questionable accounting practices from 1998 to 2001. The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas will elaborate by Nov. 3, 2008, when the plaintiffs will have the option to file motions for reconsideration or an appeal, Reuters further relates, citing Halliburton, which has headquarters in Houston and Dubai (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 2, 2008). The court issued an order Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's motion for class certification. AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to appeal the district court's order denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion and the order denying class certification is currently on appeal. The case will remain stayed in the district court pending the outcome of the appeal, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq. (rschiffrin@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin & Barroway 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Marc R. Stanley, Esq. (mstanley@smi-law.com) Stanley Mandel & Iola 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75205 Phone: 214-443-4301 Fax: 214-443-0358 - and - Thomas Burt, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz 270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-545-4600 Representing the company is: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com) Hoeffner & Bilek 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 HORIZON REALTY: Sued for Violations of the Landlord-Tenant Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Realty Group, a Chicago apartment leasing and management company, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by former tenant, Amanda Bonnen, Karen Jordan of ABC7Chicago.com reports. Ms. Bonnen, who lived in an Uptown apartment building for two years before moving out, filed the class-action lawsuit against Horizon Group last month alleging violations of the landlord- tenant ordinance, according to ABC7Chicago.com. INDIANA: Court Awards $42M to Current, Former State Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- An Indiana trial court has awarded more than $42 million to current and former Indiana state employees who were required by the State of Indiana to work 40-hour workweeks from 1973 until 1993 even though other state employees holding the same positions were required by the State to work only 37.5-hour workweeks for exactly the same pay. Judge John Hanley of the Marion Superior Court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment earlier this morning. Suit was filed almost sixteen years ago, on July 29, 1993, when attorneys William A. Hasbrook and John F. Kautzman of Indianapolis-based Ruckelshaus, Kautzman, Blackwell, Bemis & Hasbrook filed the original class action complaint. The crux of the plaintiffs' complaint has from the beginning been that the State was not legally permitted to force state employees in particular job classifications to work 2.5 hours more per week than other state employees in the same job classifications, while still paying them exactly the same pay as their lower-hour counterparts. Sixteen years and one four-day bench trial later, the Indiana court agreed and found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $42.4 million in damages for 20 years that the State continued making this unjust demand of certain of its employees. Over the course of the litigation, the case has been up and down to the Indiana appeals courts numerous times, with the plaintiffs emerging victorious each time. The case had also been overseen by a succession of judges, until Judge Hanley set the case for trial in March of this year. In 2008, the Ruckelshaus firm brought on Texas-based litigation firm Susman Godfrey LLP as co-trial counsel. Regarding the judgment, Steve Susman of Susman Godfrey said, "The Indiana state employees who are plaintiffs in this case have had to wait an extraordinarily long time for justice. But now that justice has come, these employees should finally be paid the full wage they earned so many years ago." Mr. Hasbrook of the Ruckelshaus firm said, "We thank our class representatives, all class members, and the Indiana State Employees Association for their patience and dedication in seeing the case through to this judgment. We are extremely pleased that the Court has validated the claims of Indiana's hard-working State employees." The $42.4 million dollar judgment is believed to be among the largest class action judgments against the State of Indiana in its history. The plaintiff class was represented by Mr. Susman and two of his colleagues from Susman Godfrey, Jonathan Bridges and Stephen Shackelford, Jr., and by Mr. Hasbrook and Mr. Kautzman from the Ruckelshaus firm. IMMUCOR INC: To Defend Suits Over Price-Fixing of Blood Reagents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Immucor, Inc. intends to defend purported class-action lawsuits alleging that it conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold. Since May 18, 2009, a series of 30 lawsuits have been filed in 10 different U.S. District Courts against the company, Ortho- Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. alleging that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold, asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. All of these complaints make substantially the same allegations and seek to certify a class of persons and entities who purchased blood reagents from any of the defendants between Jan. 1, 2000 and the present. Most of the complaints limit the proposed class to persons and entities in the United States, but some do not contain that limitation. Certain of the plaintiffs have filed motions with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that these cases be centralized in a single U.S. District Court; arguments on these motions are scheduled to be heard July 30, 2009. Discovery has not yet begun in any of these cases. None of the courts has made a determination whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class action, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009. Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com-- develops, manufactures and sells a line of reagents and automated systems that detect and identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of human blood for the purpose of blood transfusion. The company has manufacturing facilities in the United States and Canada and sells its products through its direct sales network in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and Japan, as well as through third-party distributors in other markets. As of May 31, 2009, the company had received orders for a total of 603 Echo instruments worldwide, including 121 orders in Europe including distributors, 470 orders in the United States and Canada, and 12 orders in Japan. On Aug. 4, 2008, Immucor acquired BioArray Solutions Ltd. IOMEDIX COLD: Oct. 20 Hearing Set for "Salcido" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles County Superior Court will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 20, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Eduardo Salcido, et al. v. Iomedix Cold International SRL, Case No. BC 387942." The suit claims defendant made false and misleading statements in their labeling and advertising of Cold MD dietary supplement (Class Action Reporter, July 8, 2009). A notice program authorized by the Los Angeles County Superior Court began in July 2009 to alert those who purchased Cold MD dietary supplement from March 26, 2004 through May 29, 2009 about a proposed settlement against Iomedix Cold International SRL. The notice is a result of the Court certifying, on May 29, 2009, a plaintiff class in a lawsuit alleging that defendant made misleading or false statements about Cold MD dietary supplement. The settlement includes only the Cold MD dietary supplement, which was packaged as "Cold MD" and had the words, "Dietary Supplement" printed on the lower right corner of the box it was sold in. The Settlement does not mean that Defendant did anything wrong, and the Court has not decided that Defendant did anything wrong. For more details, contact: Cold MD Settlement Administrator PO Box 3518 Portland, OR 97228-3518 Phone: 1-888-266-9428 Web site: http://www.ColdMDSettlement.com KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Consolidated Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- KV Pharmaceutical Co. is seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities class-action lawsuit arising from alleged financial misstatements and widespread drug recalls, calling the litigation nothing more than "fraud by hindsight," Law360 reports. The motion was filed on July 27, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, according to Law360. Previously, Law360 reported that the law firms of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP were named lead counsel in a securities class-action lawsuit against KV Pharmaceutical Co., as part of a judge's order consolidating three separate class actions against the drugmaker. In the same order, Judge Carol E. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri also named the Public Pension Fund Group as lead plaintiffs, reports Law360. KV Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharma.com-- is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, acquires and markets branded and generic/non- branded prescription pharmaceutical products. The company has a range of dosage form capabilities, including tablets, capsules, creams, liquids and ointments. KV conducts its branded pharmaceutical operations through Ther-Rx Corporation (Ther-Rx) and its generic/non-branded pharmaceutical operations through ETHEX Corporation (ETHEX). Through Particle Dynamics, Inc. (PDI), the company also develops, manufactures and markets value-added raw material products for the pharmaceutical, nutritional, personal care, food and other markets. The company has developed a variety of drug delivery and formulation technologies, which are primarily focused in four principal areas: SITE RELEASE; tastemasking; oral controlled release, and oral quick dissolving tablets. LA SALLE COUNTY: Appeals Court Affirms Decision in Ill. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The 3rd District Appellate Court ruled on July 27, 2009 against a group of tax objectors who claim La Salle County, Illinois illegally used funds from its tort levy. The ruling, which affirms an earlier lower court ruling, means that 1,600 people who signed a petition seeking relief might be able to proceed with their case, but the remaining 62,000 taxpayers who didn't sign on are excluded. Freeport attorneys Thomas James, Esq. and Robert Slattery, Esq. represent an estimated 1,600 taxpayers who filed suit in 2006. They allege the La Salle County Board illegally used $6.5 million of the $8.6 million it imposed in its tort levy in 2005, and are seeking relief. The case was transferred out of La Salle County and into Bureau County, where Judge Marc Bernabei eventually ruled the petitioners could object individually but not as a group. "The statute is very clear," Judge Bernabei said. "No class action is allowed -- period." LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Settle Suits Over Monogram Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (NYSE: LH) and Monogram Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: MGRM) announced that they have agreed in principle with the shareholder plaintiffs to settle purported class-action lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County in connection to the proposed acquisition of the Monogram Biosciences by Laboratory Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed settlements, the claims of the named plaintiffs and the proposed class of public shareholders relating to the tender offer and the related agreement and plan of merger entered into by LabCorp and Monogram on June 22, 2009 and the transactions contemplated thereby will be dismissed. Finalization of the proposed settlements remains subject to several conditions, including court approval and completion of the tender offer and the other transactions contemplated by the agreement and plan of merger in accordance with its terms. In connection with the proposed settlements, Monogram has agreed to provide additional disclosures in Monogram's solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9. The settlements will not affect the price of $4.55 per share paid in the offer or the consideration to be paid in the subsequent proposed merger. MASSACHUSETTS: Lawyers, Tollpayers Urge Settlement in MTA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys and tollpayers who are suing the state over the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority's use of toll revenues to pay for the Big Dig are urging the state to reach a settlement before going back to court, Steve Brown of WBUR reports. The call comes a day after state Treasurer Timothy Cahill sent a letter to Gov. Deval Patrick and Attorney General Martha Coakley, urging immediate action to resolve the lawsuit, according to WBUR. The plaintiffs' attorney, Jan Schlichtmann, Esq., told WBUR that the Turnpike Authority has not given any indication they are willing to settle the case. Mr. Schlichtman represents more than 2,000 tollpayers who have filed a class action lawsuit against the state, arguing the Turnpike Authority has illegally diverted money collected from those drivers to pay for the Big Dig, reports WBUR. The case is slated to go before a judge in Middlesex Superior Court on Aug. 6, 2009, WBUR reported. For more details, contact: Jan Schlichtmann, Esq., (jan@schlichtmannlaw.com) Prides Crossing Beverly, Massachusetts 01965 Phone: 978-927-1037 Fax: 978-232-9668 Web site: http://www.jschlichtmann.com/ MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y. Court Dismisses "DeBlasio" Cash Sweep Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the purported class-action lawsuit, "DeBlasio et al v. Merrill Lynch & Co. et al, Case No. 1:2007-cv-00318," which was over the "cash sweep" programs offered by brokers, Andrew Longstreth of Am Law Litigation Daily reports. The suit was filed on Jan. 12, 2007 by Carlo DeBlasio, Ronald Kassover, Stephen G. Krown, Deborah Torres, Jerome Silverman, Michael Schirripa, Arthur Kornblit and Carol Washburn. It names as defendants: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Capital Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., The Charles Schwab Corp., Merrill Lynch Bank, USA, Merrill Lynch Bank & Trust Co., FSB, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB, Citibank South Dakota N.A., Morgan Stanley Bank, Discover Bank, Charles Schwab & Co., Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., US Trust Company, N.A., Wachovia Corp., Wachovia Securities, LLC, Wachovia Bank N.A. and Wachovia Bank of Delaware, N.A. Am Law Litigation Daily reported that each brokerage had its own counsel had its own counsel. They are Jay Kasner, Esq. and Scott Musoff, Esq. of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for Merrill Lynch; Allen Burton, Esq., Bradley Butwin, Esq., and Daniel Cantor, Esq. of O'Melveny & Myers for Morgan Stanley; Alfred Pietrzak, Esq. and Andrew Stern, Esq. of Sidley Austin for Citigroup; Theo Robins, Esq. and Kenneth Schacter, Esq. of Bingham McCutchen for Charles Schwab; and Michael Conway, Esq., Cameron Matheson, Esq., and James Murphy, Esq. of LeClairRyan for Wachovia. The plaintiffs on the other hand were represented by Samuel Sporn, Esq. of Schoengold & Sporn. According to an opinion written by Judge Richard Sullivan, a copy of which was obtained by Am Law Litigation Daily, the programs were introduced back in the late 1970s. Instead of letting extra cash sit in customers' accounts, the brokerages would periodically place the money in money market accounts. The programs were modified in the 1990s to allow customers an opportunity to put their extra cash in bank accounts affiliated with the brokerages, instead of money market accounts. The modification of the program was the focus of the complaint filed against the brokers. Customers alleged that the brokerages at first paid customers who put their cash in broker- affiliated bank accounts interest rates similar to those they were offered in money market accounts, reports Am Law Litigation Daily. But subsequently, plaintiffs alleged, the brokerages began to pay lower rates and also sought to limit customer access to money market accounts, according to Am Law Litigation Daily. Among other things, the plaintiffs claimed that the brokerages' disclosures about their cash sweep programs were inaccurate and that the brokerages owed their customers a fiduciary duty to place their extra cash in the highest interest-bearing account. According to the plaintiffs, the amount that such practices affected was $186 billion, reports Am Law Litigation Daily. In general, the suit alleges these companies are illegally forcing clients into lower paying deposit accounts, enabling the firms to reap "billions" in extra profits. It further alleges violations under New York law, including fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation (Class Action Reporter, June 14, 2007). It also claims that the sweep programs amount to an illegal "tying" arrangement outlawed by the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust law. However, Judge Sullivan rejected all of the plaintiffs' claims, citing Second Circuit precedent that establishes that "a broker ordinarily has no duty to monitor a nondiscretionary account, or to give advice to such a customer on an ongoing basis." He also concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that the brokerages' disclosures about their cash sweeps programs were materially inaccurate, Am Law Litigation Daily reports. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4043 MOODY'S INVESTORS: Faces Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Fitch Group, Inc. and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit accusing them of contributing to the nation's economic catastrophe by wantonly accepting untrue and misleading statements about unsound mortgage-backed securities, Dan McCue of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on July 24, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, under the caption, "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Moody's Investors Service, Inc. et al." It claims that Moody's Investors Service, the Fitch Group and McGraw-Hill Cos. cost investors billions of dollars by failing to investigate the trustworthiness of statements issued by J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp., according to The Courthouse News Service As a result, institutional investors took a beating when the true value of these securities was revealed and the global economy unraveled, according to the plaintiff. The pension plan says the securities rating agencies played a "vital role" in creating subprime mortgage-backed securities. The process of securitization transformed undifferentiated mortgage loans into a hierarchy of securities with distinct risk attributes that could be marketed to potential investors, reports The Courthouse News Service. It also says the rating agencies at best neglected their fiduciary responsibilities by not accurately rating pre- structured mortgage-backed securities: instead, they started with the rating that was requested by the certificate issuer, and built a deal around it. According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Courthouse News Service, this laxity and greed gave the highly paid paper pushers the incentive to create as many AAA investment pools as they could sell, regardless of their true worth. The Courthouse News Service reported that the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages for itself and other class members in an amount to be determined at trial. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4041 For more details, contact: Marian P. Rosner, Esq. (mrosner@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Fax: 212-486-2093 MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Settles FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- Morton's Restaurant Group Inc. settled a national class-action lawsuit that alleged waiters for the upscale steakhouse chain were forced to give some of their tips to managers and were paid less than the minimum wage, Donna Goodison of The Boston Herald reports. The suit was filed on May 20, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Mark Johnson, a former waiter for Morton's Boston restaurant on Boylston Street from 1998 to 2002. Captioned, "Johnson v. Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., 1:2005- cv-11058," it alleged that Morton's waiters were illegally required to give a percentage of their tips to managers, even while receiving the lower minimum service wage instead of the full minimum wage. The alleged chain-wide practice violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit was settled in arbitration. "The matter has been amicably resolved," Shannon Liss-Riordan, the waiters' Boston attorney, who declined further comment told The Boston Herald. The Chicago company will record an approximately $13.4 million charge related to the class-action suit and the settlement of all other so-called wage-and-hour claims against it dating back to 2003. The sum includes cash payments for up to a four-year period and stock. For more details, contact: Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. (sliss@llrlaw.com) Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street 20th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Phone: 617-994-5800 Fax: 617-994-5801 PELEPHONE: Faces Litigation in Israel for Saving Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action motion was filed against Pelephone, a subsidairy of Bezeq Group, claiming the company's database of text messages sent and received by customers constitutes illegal wiretapping, Hila Raz of Ha'aretz reports. The claimants, attorneys Kobi Sudari and Ashraf Abu Razek, filed their claim in the Petah Tikva District Court in Israel. They claim that the company copies and saves messages in a database, even after customers delete them from their phones, according to Ha'aretz. The claimants say that the mobile services provider is doing this without authorization, and without the knowledge and consent of the sender or the receiver. This practice violates the privacy and the contractual and consumer rights of millions of consumers in Israel and abroad, the claimants charge, Ha'aretz reported. SANTA MONICA: Faces Homeless Residents' Civil Rights Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Santa Monica and Santa Monica Police Department are facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the city has made it a "crime to be homeless" and that the police are harassing and forcing such people into neighboring cities, including Malibu, Venice and Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles, Elizabeth Banicki of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on July 14, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Nadine Chubna, Keith Greene, Alejandra Solana, Jade Gilbert, Lisa Martin and Thomas Martin, under the caption, "Nadine Chubna et al v. City of Santa Monica et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-05046." The plaintiffs are homeless residents, who say they have been cited for sleeping in public though they have no other place to go, and that police harass them despite their physical and mental illnesses, reports The Courthouse News Service. According to the plaintiffs, they have been booted from the streets for "camping" though many or most of them are schizophrenic or drug-addicted and have no other place to go. The plaintiff say that officers often wake them up in the middle of the night by using shoes and batons or shining flashlights in their eyes. They also say that Santa Monica police officers routinely insult and harass homeless people who are not bothering anyone or doing anything illegal, The Courthouse News Service reported. The homeless are told that they must get out of Santa Monica and move on to Malibu, Venice, or Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles, according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Courthouse News Service. The lawsuit seeks damages for due process violations, cruel and unusual punishment, violation of equal protection, the right to travel and freedom of movement, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction and costs, according to The Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4047 For more details, contact: Catherine E Lhamon, Esq. (clhamon@aclu-sc.org) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-977-9500 Fax: 213-977-5297 - and - Jonathan E. Altman, Esq. (altmanje@mto.com) Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 355 S Grand Ave, 35th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: 213-683-9100 Fax: 213-683-5162 SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY: Reaches $4.2M Deal for Workers' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Savannah-Chatham County school district settled a class- action lawsuit by employees who say they were not allowed to enroll in the state retirement system for educators, The Associated Press reports. The district has agreed to pay $4.2 million to the more than 200 school maintenance, lunchroom, transportation and warehouse workers who filed the suit. Any of the workers still employed by the district will now be able to sign up for the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia, according to AP. The Associated Press reported that the lawsuit was filed in 2004 by a school mechanic who says he was denied enrollment in the retirement system. Other workers joined him after a Chatham Superior Court judge granted class-action status to the case. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeal to Class Status in ERISA Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp.'s appeal to the class certification decision in the putative class action complaint relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations is pending before the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 31, 2003, Schering-Plough was served with a putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey alleging that Schering-Plough, retired Chairman, CEO and President Richard Jay Kogan, Schering-Plough's Employee Savings Plan (Plan) administrator, several current and former directors, and certain former corporate officers breached their fiduciary obligations to certain participants in the Plan. The complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses allegedly suffered by the Plan. The complaint was dismissed on June 29, 2004. The plaintiffs appealed. On Aug. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the dismissal by the District Court and the matter has been remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings. On Sept. 30, 2008, the District Court entered an order granting in part, and denying in part, the named putative class representative's motion for class certification. Schering-Plough petitioned the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for leave to appeal the class certification decision. Schering-Plough's petition was granted on Dec. 10, 2008, and the appeal is currently pending before the Third Circuit, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global science-centered healthcare company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer markets. The company operates in three segments: Prescription Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care. The Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products. The Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets animal health products. The Consumer Health Care segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter, foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues to Face Third-Party Payors' Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp. continues to face purported class-action lawsuits by third-party payors alleging off-label promotion and improper payments to physicians. Several purported class action litigations have been filed following the announcement of the settlement of the Massachusetts Investigation. Plaintiffs in these actions seek damages on behalf of third- party payors resulting from the allegations of off-label promotion and improper payments to physicians that were at issue in the Massachusetts Investigation, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global science-centered healthcare company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer markets. The company operates in three segments: Prescription Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care. The Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products. The Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets animal health products. The Consumer Health Care segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter, foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Defends Lawsuits Over Cholesterol Joint Venture ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corporation continues to respond to existing and new litigation relating to the cholesterol joint venture with Merck & Co., Inc., according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In January 2008, the Merck/Schering-Plough Cholesterol Joint Venture announced the results of the ENHANCE clinical trial (Effect of Combination Ezetimibe and High-Dose Simvastatin vs. Simvastatin Alone on the Atherosclerotic Process in Patients with Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia). In July 2008, the Merck/Schering-Plough Cholesterol Joint Venture announced the results of the SEAS clinical trial (Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis). Litigation and investigations with respect to matters relating to these clinical trials have been disclosed in prior filings. Pending litigation include: -- civil class action lawsuits alleging common law and state consumer fraud claims in connection with Schering- Plough's sale and promotion of the Merck/Schering-Plough joint venture products VYTORIN and ZETIA; -- several putative shareholder securities class action lawsuits (where several officers are also named defendants) alleging false and misleading statements and omissions by Schering-Plough and its representatives related to the timing of disclosures concerning the ENHANCE results, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; -- a putative shareholder securities class action lawsuit (where several officers and directors are also named), alleging material misstatements and omissions related to the ENHANCE results in the offering documents in connection with Schering-Plough's 2007 securities offerings, allegedly in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, including Section 11; -- several putative class action suits alleging that Schering-Plough and certain officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and seeking damages in the amount of losses allegedly suffered by the Plans; -- a Shareholder Derivative Action alleging that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary obligations relating to the timing of the release of the ENHANCE results; and -- a letter on behalf of a single shareholder requesting that the Board of Directors investigate the allegations in the litigation described above and, if warranted, bring any appropriate legal action on behalf of Schering-Plough. On July 15, 2009, Schering-Plough and Merck announced a settlement with a multistate group of 36 Attorneys General that was investigating whether the companies violated state consumer protection laws in connection with the ENHANCE clinical trial or the promotion and marketing of VYTORIN. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global science-centered healthcare company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer markets. The company operates in three segments: Prescription Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care. The Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products. The Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets animal health products. The Consumer Health Care segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter, foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Inks Settlement in Merck Shareholders Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp. and Merck & Co., Inc., in July 2009, agreed to settle a consolidated class-action complaint filed on behalf of public shareholders of Merck. Two putative class-action complaints have been filed on behalf of public shareholders of Merck. On June 4, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-action complaint seeking, among other things, class action status, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the proposed combination, rescission of the combination if it is consummated, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On July 23, 2009, Schering-Plough and Merck entered into an agreement regarding a settlement of these consolidated actions for certain disclosures relating to the proposed merger which had previously been made. The agreement to make the additional disclosures does not constitute an acknowledgment that the additional disclosures are required under any applicable state or federal law, statute, rule or regulation. The parties also agreed that plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global science-centered healthcare company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer markets. The company operates in three segments: Prescription Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care. The Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products. The Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets animal health products. The Consumer Health Care segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter, foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States. SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Ruling on K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey judge has not yet ruled on the special master recommendation in the K-DUR antitrust litigation, according to Schering-Plough Corp.'s July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Schering-Plough had settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc. (Lederle) relating to generic versions of K-DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications. Following the commencement of a Federal Trade Commission administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from those settlements (which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's favor), alleged class action suits were filed in federal and state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K- DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle. These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action. These suits seek unspecified damages. In February 2009, a special master recommended that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismiss the class- action lawsuits on summary judgment. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global science-centered healthcare company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer markets. The company operates in three segments: Prescription Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care. The Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products. The Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets animal health products. The Consumer Health Care segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter, foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settlement Deal on Merger Suit Inked on July 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schering-Plough Corp., on July 23, 2009, entered into an agreement regarding a settlement of the consolidated federal class action for certain disclosures relating to the proposed merger with Merck & Co., Inc. Since the announcement of the proposed combination, several putative class action lawsuits seeking to enjoin the merger, among other things, have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Schering-Plough in federal and state court. As amended, four putative class action lawsuits relating to the proposed merger between the two companies were filed on behalf of Schering-Plough shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On April 30, 2009, the federal actions were consolidated under the caption "In re Schering-Plough/Merck Merger Litig., Civ No. 09-1099." On June 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-action complaint in the Federal Action seeking to enjoin the proposed merger, among other things. On July 23, 2009, Schering-Plough entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding a settlement of the litigation. In connection with the settlement, Schering-Plough agreed, among other things, to make disclosures related to the proposed merger. The agreement to make the additional disclosures does not constitute an acknowledgment that the additional disclosures are required under any applicable state or federal law, statute, rule or regulation. The parties also agreed that plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global science-centered healthcare company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer markets. The company operates in three segments: Prescription Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care. The Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products. The Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets animal health products. The Consumer Health Care segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter, foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settlement of Securities Suit Under Advisement --------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement agreement of a consolidated amended class-action complaint against Schering-Plough Corp. is under advisement of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Following Schering-Plough's announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had been conducting inspections of its manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were filed against Schering-Plough and certain named officers. These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material information and making material misstatements. Specifically, they allege that Schering-Plough failed to disclose an alleged serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and they allege that Schering-Plough failed to disclose the alleged depth and severity of its manufacturing issues. These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001, purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of Schering-Plough stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001. The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class. The Court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003. Notice of pendency of the class action was sent to members of that class in July 2007. On Feb. 18, 2009 the Court signed an order preliminarily approving a settlement agreement. The proposed settlement agreement was presented to the Court on June 1, 2009. The Court took the settlement agreement under advisement, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global science-centered healthcare company. Through its own biopharmaceutical research and collaborations with partners, Schering-Plough discovers, develops and manufactures pharmaceuticals for prescription, animal health, and consumer markets. The company operates in three segments: Prescription Pharmaceuticals, Animal Health and Consumer Health Care. The Prescription Pharmaceuticals segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets human pharmaceutical products. The Animal Health segment discovers, develops, manufactures and markets animal health products. The Consumer Health Care segment develops, manufactures and markets over-the-counter, foot care and sun care products, primarily in the United States. SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. (NYSE: SKH) has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Skilled Healthcare common stock during the period from May 14, 2007 through June 9, 2009, alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Skilled Healthcare. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. (NYSE: SKH) common stock during the period from May 14, 2007 through June 9, 2009, inclusive. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks to recover losses for Skilled Healthcare shareholders (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2009). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California as case no. CV-09-5416. The complaint charges Skilled Healthcare and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting the true amount of its income in its IPO prospectus and in other SEC filings and public communications. In an announcement dated June 9, 2009, Skilled Healthcare announced that the Company's prior financial statements for the annual and quarterly periods between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2009 should no longer be relied upon and that the Company expected to restate those financial statements. According to the announcement, Skilled Healthcare discovered errors relating to its accounting for reserves on its accounts receivable. The Company estimated that the cumulative charges against after-tax earnings in the aggregate would be between $8 million and $9 million. The Complaint alleges that this adverse disclosure caused the value of Skilled Healthcare's stock to fall, damaging investors. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Skilled Healthcare common stock during the Class Period, including purchasers of Skilled Healthcare's common stock in the IPO on or about May 14, 2007. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 22, 2009. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060 Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ TELEMAR NORTE: Faces Suit for Breaking Customer-Service Rules ------------------------------------------------------------- Brazil's Justice Ministry filed two class-action lawsuits against mobile-phone providers Telemar Norte Leste SA and Claro, the local unit of America Movil SAB, for allegedly breaking customer-service rules, Helder Marinho of Bloomberg reports. Fines of 300 million reais ($158.6 million) are being sought for each company, the ministry said in an e-mailed statementreceived by Bloomberg. "Even though the companies, generally, have invested in hiring and there has been an improvement in customer service, the abusive structure is maintained in the telecommunication sector," according to the ministry. UNITED STATES: Faces Minn. Litigation Over HAMP, Foreclosures ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys in Minnesota filed a class-action lawsuit asking a federal judge to halt federal foreclosures until everyone eligible for the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) can be evaluated for help, Jessica Mador of Minnesota Public Radio reports. The suit was filed on July 28, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota by Nichole Williams and Johnson Sendolo, under the caption, "Williams et al v. Geithner et al., Case No. 0:2009-cv-01959." Listed as defendants are: Timothy F. Geithner, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Federal Housing Finance Agency, The, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, The, Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and GMAC Mortgage. Attorneys say a moratorium is needed because the Home Affordable Modification Program has been wrongly rejecting applications from qualified homeowners without explanation or the right to appeal, according to Minnesota Public Radio. Mark Ireland, Esq., who is with the Foreclosure Relief Law Project in St. Paul, Minn., the group behind the lawsuit says that stopping foreclosures will give lenders and servicers the time they need to fairly process applications. "Not just because it's the right thing to do to have transparency and accountability, but because it's required by the due process clause of the Constitution. And that is what this case is about," Mr. Ireland tells Minnesota Public Radio. The Obama administration launched the $75 billion program this spring and has been promoting it with a massive publicity campaign. The president said it would help as many as four million homeowners, Minnesota Public Radio reported. The program is intended for people having trouble paying their mortgage, either because their monthly payments have gone up or their income has gone down because of high medical bills or a lost job, reports Minnesota Public Radio. For more details, contact: Mark R. Ireland, Esq. (mireland@hppinc.org) Housing Preservation Project 570 Asbury St Ste 105 St Paul, MN 55104 Phone: 651-642-0102 Fax: 651-642-0051 UNITIL CORP: To Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- Unitil Corp. intends to defend itself in a putative class action complaint captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, according to the company's July 24, 2009 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The putative class-action Complaint was filed against Fitchburg on Jan. 7, 2009, in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester, Massachusetts. On April 1, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg. The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 Storm. Unitil Corp. -- http://www.unitil.com/-- is a public utility holding company. Unitil's principal business is the retail distribution of both electricity and natural gas in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and the retail distribution of natural gas in Maine. Unitil has three retail distribution utility subsidiaries: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, and Northern Utilities, Inc. (Northern). Unitil's retail distribution utilities serve approximately 170,000 customers in their franchise areas. Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State), an interstate natural gas transmission pipeline company, was acquired by Unitil, along with Northern, from NiSource Inc. in December 2008. Unitil also provides energy brokering and advisory services to large commercial and industrial customers throughout the northeastern United States through its non- regulated business segment, Unitil Resources, Inc. and its subsidiary, Usource, LLC. New Securities Fraud Cases NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Kendall Law Group Announces Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S. Attorney, announces a shareholder class action has been filed in Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of current investors of Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: NOVN), who purchased their shares before July 14, 2009. The lawsuit concerns potential breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in connection with an alleged unfair takeover price. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. announced on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical offered to acquire Noven Pharmaceutical for total cash consideration of approximately $428 million, or $16.50 per share, in an all-cash tender offer for 100% of the outstanding shares of Noven. The offer price represents a 22% premium to the closing price of Noven's common stock on July 13, 2009. The complaint alleges that "the consideration that Hisamitsu has stated it will offer to holders of Noven common stock, and that Noven's Board has accepted in unanimously agreeing to the Proposed Transaction, is unfair and inadequate because, among other things, the intrinsic value of Noven common stock is materially higher than the amount offered, giving due consideration to the Company's growth and operating results and a promising new drug product in its pipeline." Hisamitsu has had a capital alliance with Noven since 2001 and owns already 4.98 percent of its outstanding shares. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., located in Miami, Florida, is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the research, development, manufacturing, licensing, marketing and sale of prescription pharmaceutical products. For more details, contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. (hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com) Kendall Law Group 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.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, 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 * * *