/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090909.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 178 Headlines ARIZONA: Ruling Reshapes Arizona's English Learning Case BIGBAND NETWORKS: Records 2nd Qtr. $500,000 Class Action Charge CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Overtime Class Action Suit Dismissed FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Mass. Consolidated Suit Dismissed in Aug. 2009 JACKSON HEWITT: Virginia RAL Customers' Suit in Pretrial Stage JACKSON HEWITT: "Wooley" Suit Over False Deductions in Discovery JACKSON HEWITT: Pursues Dismissal of Suit by Mo. RAL Customers JACKSON HEWITT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Norris" Suit JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appealing Dismissal of "Gomez" Suit JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appeal to Ruling in CSOA Suit Pending LAND OF LEATHER: Deloitte Sees GBP 1 Mil. of Chemical Burn Claims PARKER-HANNIFIN: Settlement of Merged Price-Fixing Suit Pending T-MOBILE USA: Proposed Settlement of Handset Locking Lawsuits VANGUARD HEALTH: Certification Motion in Antitrust Suit Pending ********* ARIZONA: Ruling Reshapes Arizona's English Learning Case -------------------------------------------------------- The Mohave Daily News reports that the 17-year-old legal and political dispute over Arizona's school programs for students learning English will start anew after a U.S. Supreme Court decision that threw out years of previous rulings. The high court ordered U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins in Tucson to consider just how much the state's efforts to improve its teaching methods have come toward meeting federal laws that require equal education for all students. Before the June 25 Supreme Court ruling, Collins had ordered increased spending for the more than 100,000 students learning English in K-12 public schools. But state officials argued that new daily four-hour instruction periods and other changes could meet the requirements of the Educational Opportunities Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the state was entitled to a fresh legal review of the case, which was originally filed in 1992 on behalf of parents and students in a southern Arizona school district, Nogales Unified. The justices' 5-4 decision said the educational landscape has changed significantly since a now-retired judge ruled in 2000 that Arizona wasn't providing the money for English language learners to get an appropriate education. A copy of the High Court's decision in Horne, Superintendent, Arizona Public Instruction v. Flores, et al, No. 08-289, is available at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-289.pdf The proceeding before the trial court is Flores, et al. v. Arizona, et al., Case No. 92-cv-00596 (D. Airz.). Case Background The state was ordered to improve its offering to students learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000 that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students were inadequately funded. The order was part of a ruling in a class action, which was originally filed in 1992 and led by Mr. Hogan on behalf of Nogales Unified students and parents. The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that guarantees equal opportunities in education. The state was fined $500,000 in January 2006 for missing a deadline to draft ways to improve the program. The fine was increased to $1 million, resulting to a $21 million in total fines. The fines were stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill seeking to revamp the English learning programs was passed into law in March 2006. In April 2006, Judge Collins ruled that the law still does not adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out the costs of providing those programs, and does not explain the basis for funding that it does provide. The 9th Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San Francisco on July 25, 2006. In August 2006, it vacated orders by Judge Collins, blocked the distribution of the fines to public schools, and allowed the state to return the money to the general fund. The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the state has made improvements to its programs in light of changes in education funding and related circumstances since the original 2000 ruling. The August 2006 ruling of the appellate court did not rule directly on the latest law regarding the program. Judge Collins finished on Jan. 25, 2007, a hearing to determine whether the state has already improved the program. In March 2007, he issued a ruling stating that the system is still deficient. He ordered lawmakers to resolve the issue by the end of their current session. Meanwhile, the Legislature adjourned in 2007 without any discussion of revamping English language learning to comply with Judge Collins' judgment. Instead, Republican lawmakers and the state schools chief asked the 9th Circuit to put Judge Collins' ruling on hold. The appeals court rejected that request on June 25, 2007, saying Judge Collins has not yet found the Legislature in contempt for ignoring his earlier ruling to boost the programs. Representing the plaintiffs is: Timothy Michael Hogan, Esq. Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: 602-258-8850 Fax: 602-258-8757 E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org Representing the defendants are: Lynne Christensen Adams, Esq. Jose A. Cardenas, Esq. Lewis & Roca, LLP 40 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429 Phone: 602-262-5372 602-262-5790 Fax: 602-734-4015 602-734-3852 E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com jcardenas@lrlaw.com BIGBAND NETWORKS: Records 2nd Qtr. $500,000 Class Action Charge --------------------------------------------------------------- In reporting financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2009, this week, BigBand Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: BBND), recorded a $500,000 charge against earnings related to class action litigation. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 14, 2009, BigBand is seeking approval of an $11 million settlement in In re BigBand Networks, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-05101 (N.D. Calif.) (Armstrong, J.). A fairness hearing on that proposal is set for 1:00 p.m. on Sept. 15, 2009. In the securities litigation: The plaintiffs are represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: 510-725-3000 Fax: 510-725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com - and - Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 E-mail: Lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com and the defendants are represented by: Michael Carl Tu, Esq. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 777 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-629-2020 Fax: 213-612-2499 E-mail: mtu@orrick.com BigBand Networks, Inc. -- http://www.bigbandnet.com/-- provides broadband service providers with innovative network solutions designed to make it easier to move, manage and monetize video. These solutions are based on BigBand's video-networking platforms that are built to enable efficient and reliable delivery across a wide range of services, including digital TV, high definition TV, advanced advertising, video-on-demand and interactive TV. BigBand Networks' customers include more than 200 service providers -- including seven of the ten largest service providers in the U.S. -- and leading cable and telco service providers in North America, Asia, Europe and Latin America. BigBand Networks is based in Redwood City, Calif., with offices worldwide. CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Overtime Class Action Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Luis Millan at The Lawyers Weekly reports that a much-anticipated ruling keenly followed by federally regulated employers and employees could sound the death knell for class action suits seeking compensation for unpaid overtime after an Ontario judge in Fresco v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, [2009] O.J. No. 2531, held that overtime claims are individual in nature and lack the essential element of commonality necessary to justify a class action proceeding. In a ruling that draws distinctions between overtime claims, clarifying the Canada Labour Code and providing guidance on evidentiary considerations in certification motions, Justice Joan Lax of the Ontario Superior Court refused to certify a class action that claimed $600 million in compensatory and punitive damages against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Mr. Millan's complete report is available at http://is.gd/2ZVkK FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Mass. Consolidated Suit Dismissed in Aug. 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action against The First Marblehead Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts was dismissed in August 2009. In April and May 2008, seven purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and certain of its directors in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in various Securities and Exchange Commission filings, press releases and other public statements. The complaints alleged various claims under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such other relief as the court deemed just and proper. In August 2008, the court consolidated these cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and a lead counsel. In November 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs that contained allegations similar to the earlier complaints. On Aug. 5, 2009, the court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint. The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to re-plead; however, the plaintiffs have a right to appeal the dismissal, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. The First Marblehead Corp. -- http://www.firstmarblehead.com/-- provides outsourcing services for private education lending in the U.S. It meets the demand for private education loans by providing national and regional financial institutions and educational institutions, as well as businesses, education loan marketers and other enterprises, with an integrated suite of design, implementation and securitization services for student loan programs. The Company is engaged on loan programs for undergraduate, graduate and professional education, and on the primary and secondary school market. The Company is engaged in program design and marketing coordination, borrower inquiry and application, loan origination and disbursement, loan securitization and loan servicing. JACKSON HEWITT: Virginia RAL Customers' Suit in Pretrial Stage -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, is in its pretrial stage, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter (now substituted by Christian Harper and Elizabeth Harper as proposed class representatives) brought a purported class-action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, on behalf of West Virginia customers who obtained RALs facilitated by the company, seeking damages for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty, for alleged breach of West Virginia's Credit Service Organization Act, for alleged breach of contract, and for alleged unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with the company's RAL facilitation activities. On March 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's partial motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On July 15, 2008, the company answered the first amended complaint. On Feb. 10, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class. The company opposed that motion. On Feb. 11, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On the same day, the company filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 6, 2009, the company opposed Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On April 7, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the certifications of four legal questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Decisions by the Court on those motions are currently pending. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/ -- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S. The Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing. JACKSON HEWITT: "Wooley" Suit Over False Deductions in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action complaint filed by Brent Wooley against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. is in its discovery and pretrial stage, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought a purported class-action complaint against the company and certain unknown franchisees in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. The complaint, which was subsequently amended, was brought on behalf of customers who obtained tax return preparation services that allegedly included false deductions without support by the customer that resulted in penalties being assessed by the IRS against the taxpayer for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act, and alleging unjust enrichment and breach of contract, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act relate to representations regarding tax return preparation, Basic Guarantee and Gold Guarantee coverage and denial of Gold Guarantee claims. Following dispositive motions, on Dec. 24, 2008, the company answered Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint with respect to the remaining breach of contract claim. On Aug. 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/ -- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S. The Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing. JACKSON HEWITT: Pursues Dismissal of Suit by Mo. RAL Customers -------------------------------------------------------------- Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. pursues dismissal of Sherita Fugate's purported class-action complaint, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. On April 29, 2009, Sherita Fugate brought a purported class- action complaint against the company in the Circuit Court of Missouri, Jackson County, on behalf of Missouri customers who obtained RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply with Missouri's Credit Services Organization Act, for an alleged violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. On May 29, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/ -- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S. The Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing. JACKSON HEWITT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Norris" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. awaits a ruling on its motion to dismiss the purported class-action complaint by Quiana Norris, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. On April 14, 2009, Quiana Norris brought a purported class- action complaint against the company in the Superior Court of Indiana, Marion County, on behalf of Indiana customers who obtained RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply with Indiana's Credit Services Organization Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. On May 1, 2009, the company filed a notice removing the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On June 8, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/ -- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S. The Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing. JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appealing Dismissal of "Gomez" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Gomez is appealing the dismissal of her purported class- action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. On Feb. 16, 2009, Ms. Gomez brought a purported class-action complaint against the company in the Circuit Court of Maryland, Montgomery County, on behalf of Maryland customers who obtained RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply with Maryland's Credit Services Businesses Act, and for an alleged violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. On March 18, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss. On June 18, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss in all respects, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. On July 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/ -- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S. The Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing. JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appeal to Ruling in CSOA Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff's appeal to a lower court decision to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration in a purported class-action complaint filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. remains pending. On Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class-action complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, on behalf of Ohio customers who obtained RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and for alleged unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. On Nov. 10, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively, to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration. On May 5, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to stay proceedings and to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff's claims, and denied the company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the Court's decision to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/ -- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S. The Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing. LAND OF LEATHER: Deloitte Sees GBP 1 Mil. of Chemical Burn Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Sibun, writing for the Daily Telegraph, reports that creditor recoveries from U.K. furniture retailer Land of Leather, currently projected at 9%, may be substantially reduced based on the outcome of class-action litigation concerning sachets of toxic chemicals that were inserted into sofas supplied by a Chinese manufacturer, Linkwise. Consumers claim they suffered from chemical burns. In documents filed at Companies House, Deloitte, the Administrator, received approximately GBP 1 million in claims from customers. PARKER-HANNIFIN: Settlement of Merged Price-Fixing Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of an amended consolidated class-action suit accusing Parker-Hannifin Corp. and Parker ITR SLR of "conspiring to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of Marine Hose," is pending. Marine Hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transport oil between ships, terminals, buoys and tanks (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2008). Four purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: -- Shipyard Supply LLC v. Bridgestone Corporation, et al., filed May 17, 2007; -- Expro Gulf Limited v. Bridgestone Corporation, et al., filed June 6, 2007; -- Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Trelleborg Industrie S.A., et al., filed June 25, 2007; -- Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Caleca, et al., filed July 12, 2007; and One suit -- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Bridgestone Corporation, et al. -- was filed in the Southern District of New York on July 27, 2007. The company is named as a defendant in one case and it filed an answer in that matter. Parker ITR filed a motion to dismiss each of the four cases in which it is a defendant. However, these dismissal motions were denied as moot after all five cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Florida as 08-MDL- 1888. On March 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class- action complaint that alleges that the defendants, for a period of approximately 21 years, conspired with competitors in unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and customers for marine oil and gas hose in the U.S. On Sept. 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint that alleges that the defendants, for a period of approximately 21 years, conspired with competitors in unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and customers for marine oil and gas hose in the United States. The plaintiffs generally seek treble damages, a permanent injunction, attorneys' fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. Currently pending before the court are motions to approve the settlement agreement between the Company, Parker ITR and the plaintiffs and to grant plaintiffs motion for class certification. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company has a reserve of $16.1 million for known and potential civil damages. The company and Parker ITR have reached a settlement of the class action litigation in the United States, which is subject to court approval, according to its Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. Parker-Hannifin Corp. -- http://www.parker.com/-- is a full- line diversified manufacturer of motion control products, including fluid power systems, electromechanical controls and related components. In addition to motion control products, the Company also is a producer of fluid purification, fluid and fuel control, process instrumentation, air conditioning, refrigeration, electromagnetic shielding and thermal management products and systems. Its manufacturing, service, distribution and administrative facilities are located in 35 states and in 42 foreign countries. Its motion control technology is used in the products of its three principal business segments: Industrial, Aerospace, and Climate & Industrial Controls. The products are sold as original and replacement equipment through product and distribution centers worldwide. Parker products are supplied to over 427,000 customers in manufacturing, transportation and processing industry. T-MOBILE USA: Proposed Settlement of Handset Locking Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- IF YOU PURCHASED A CELLPHONE FROM T-MOBILE, A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. A proposed settlement is pending in two lawsuits relating to software "locks" that prevent T-Mobile cellphone handsets from operating with other compatible wireless telephone carriers' services. The lawsuits are Nguyen v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. JCCP 4332, pending in Alameda County Superior Court, and Hellman v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 04-CA-005061 AN, pending in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. ARE YOU AFFECTED? You are a class member if you purchased a cellphone handset from T-Mobile from January 1, 2000 to August 1, 2009. WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? The lawsuits claim that T-Mobile's sale of handsets that have been programmed not to operate with other compatible wireless telephone carriers' services is improper and that this restriction has not been properly disclosed to customers. T- Mobile denies any wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle to avoid the cost and expense of further litigation. The Courts have not made a decision in these cases. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? T-Mobile agrees to give to eligible current and former customers, upon request and where available, codes that unlock T-Mobile handsets. Unlock codes will be provided to eligible postpaid customers who are in good standing and have a minimum of 40 days of active service with T-Mobile, and to eligible prepaid customers who are in good standing and who have a minimum of 60 days of active service with T-Mobile and either have a prepaid account balance of at least $10, or have refilled their prepaid account in the last 30 days. Customers may request one unlock code per line of service every 90 days. The settlement also provides attorneys' fees of up to $1.85 million. WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS? You have three options: Remain in the settlement class. If you are a class member and you do not exclude yourself from the settlement class, you will be bound by the terms of the settlement and give up your right to sue regarding issues in this case. Request to be excluded. The Court will exclude you from the settlement class if you mail a request for exclusion to Defense Counsel and Class Counsel at the addresses below. Requests must be postmarked by October 25, 2009. Object to the settlement. If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement class, you may object to it by yourself or through an attorney that you hire at your own expense. Objections must be written and mailed to the Court at Clerk of the Court, Alameda County Superior Court, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 95612, and Class Counsel and Defense Counsel at the addresses below. Objections received by October 25, 2009 will be considered at the fairness hearing. You will be bound by the terms of the settlement even if your objection is rejected. The Court will determine whether to approve the settlement at a fairness hearing held on November 24, 2009. If you filed an objection through an attorney, your attorney may appear at the hearing to explain your objection. HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents about this lawsuit and your rights please call toll- free: 1-888-878-1367 or write to: T-Mobile Cellphone Settlement P.O. Box 8090 San Rafael, CA 94912- 8090 Class Counsel: Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Defense Counsel: Christopher Hockett, Esq. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 VANGUARD HEALTH: Certification Motion in Antitrust Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for class certification in Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., Case No. 06-cv-00535 (W.D. Tex.), remains pending, according to Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.'s Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filed in San Antonio, Texas against the company's Baptist Health System subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospital systems in San Antonio. In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital system defendants conspired with each other and with other unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of registered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws. The complaint alleges two separate claims. The first count asserts that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain competition, by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation. The second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in wage, salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having the effect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or limiting competition for nurses based on their compensation. The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is alleged to comprise all registered nurses employed by the defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002. The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys fees. From 2006 through April 2008, the company and the plaintiffs worked on producing documents to each other relating to, and supplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, the issue of whether the court will certify a class in this suit. In April 2008, the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.vanguardhealth.com/- - operates 15 for-profit acute care hospitals located in urban and suburban markets in Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Texas; all told, the hospitals have more than 4,000 licensed beds. The company's hospital systems generally include outpatient facilities and medical office buildings that form local health care networks providing a continuum of care. Vanguard also runs three managed health care plans that serve around 150,000 members in Arizona and Illinois. The Blackstone Group owns a majority stake in the company. ********* 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. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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 * * *