/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091015.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 204 Headlines ALLIANZ LIFE: Federal Jury in Minn. Rules in Insurer's Favor AT&T MOBILITY: Class Doesn't Want Visa Debit Cards CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Approve "Veliz" Suit Settlement DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in New York DTD ENTERPRISES: High Court Notes Concern Over Class-Action Costs GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Pa. Jury Awards $2.5 Mil. in First Paxil Trial GREEN BULLION: Cash4Gold Runs a Game, Class Action Suit Claims KB HOME: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Judgment Motion in "Bagley" Suit KELLY SERVICES: Settles Wage & Hour Class Action for $11 Million LAWSON SOFTWARE: Certification Bid in "Cruz" Labor Suit Pending MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Mediation in Calif. Securities Suits Ongoing PEPSI BOTTLING: Judgment Bid in Consolidated Complaint Pending PEPSI BOTTLING: Motions to Dismiss Two Stockholder Suits Pending PEPSI BOTTLING: Seeks to Dismiss Stockholder Suit in New York REX ENERGY: Opposes Certification in Suit Over H2S Contamination RITE AID: Settlement with Store Managers Pending Final Approval SPECTRUM GROUP: Fulfills Securities Suit Settlement Obligations TRAVELEX CURRENCY: ATM Fee Refund Claims Due by Nov. 2, 2009 YAHOO! INC: Notice of Proposed Pay-Per-Click Settlement ********* ALLIANZ LIFE: Federal Jury in Minn. Rules in Insurer's Favor ------------------------------------------------------------ Late Monday, a federal jury ruled in favor of Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America in Mooney v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 06-cv-00545 (D. Minn.), involving allegations relating to the clarity of language in some marketing materials on certain products purchased between February 9, 2000, and May 10, 2007, but ultimately expanded to other practices, policies and procedures. Prior coverage of this litigation appeared in the Class Action Reporter on July 12, 2007. "We are very pleased that the jury concluded that no harm came to our policyholders," said Allianz Life President and CEO Gary C. Bhojwani, emphasizing that the company has some of the most stringent sales oversight policies and procedures in the industry. "Allianz Life strives to work with only the best financial professionals in providing financial solutions for more than a million policyholders." "On behalf of the Company, I would like to thank our employees, our agents, and parent company for their continued support throughout this process. We remain committed to doing the right thing for our customers. Equally important, we remain committed to guarding our reputation jealously." Founded in 1896, Allianz Life provides an array of annuities as well as long term care and life insurance products in the U.S. through a nationwide network of independent distribution. The company is part of Allianz Group (NYSE: AZ), a global financial services group that is the 20th largest company in the world based on revenues, (Fortune Global 500, August 2009), employing nearly 155,000 people worldwide. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq. Karl L. Cambronne, Esq. Stewart C. Loper, Esq. Brian N. Toder, Esq. CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE, PA 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-339-7300 - and - Jason R. Doss, Esq. THE DOSS FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 965669 Marietta, GA 30066 Telephone: 770-578-1314 - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. J. Steven Parker, Esq. Alan R. Perry, Jr., Esq. David J. Worley, Esq. PAGE PERRY LLC 1040 Crown Pointe Pkwy., Ste. 1050 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: 770-551-2731 - and - Jason M. Kueser, Esq. THE KUESER LAW FIRM, PC PO Box 612 Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Telephone: 816-374-5865 - and - Diane A. Nygaard, Esq. Katie Diane Whitman, Esq. THE NYGAARD LAW FIRM 4501 College Blvd., Ste. 260 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: 913-469-5544 Allianz is represented by: David A. Applebaum, Esq. Arthur G. Boylan, Esq. Lawrence J. Field, Esq. S. Steven Prince, Esq. Elizabeth Wiet Reutter, Esq. LEONARD STREET AND DEINARD, PA 150 S. 5th St., Ste. 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-335-1943 - and - Christopher G. Barnes, Esq. Thomas J. Finn, Esq. Jacob R.C. Hathorn, Esq. Jeffrey L. Williams, Esq. JORDEN BURT, LLP 175 Powder Forest Dr., Ste. 201 Simsbury, CT 06089-9658 Telephone: 860-392-5018 - and - Ari H. Gerstin, Esq. Richard A. Sharpstein, Esq. Michael C. Shue, Esq. Irma Reboso Solares, Esq. JORDEN BURT LLP 777 Brickell Ave., Ste. 500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-371-2600 - and - Frank G. Burt, Esq. Sheila J. Carpenter, Esq. Raul A. Cuervo, Esq. Denise A. Fee, Esq. Roland C. Goss, Esq. Lynn E. Hawkins, Esq. James F. Jorden, Esq. Stephen J. Jorden, Esq. Brian P. Perryman, Esq. Robin M. Sanders, Esq. Evan James Taylor, Esq. Dawn B. Williams, Esq. C. Todd Willis, Esq. JORDEN BURT, LLP 1025 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Ste. 400E Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: 202-965-8100 AT&T MOBILITY: Class Doesn't Want Visa Debit Cards -------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that instead of paying cash rebates as it promised, AT&T saddles customers with VISA debit cards, a class action claims. AT&T Mobility fka Cingular Wireless "paid" its advertised rebates "not by way of a check or cash but rather in the form of a VISA debit card, which in most, if not all, cases included an expiration date for usage," the class claims. It adds that this "dramatically increased the probability that card users will end up with partial and essentially unusable balances, which funds all revert to defendant." Lead plaintiff Giovanni Respinto filed the class action in Fulton County Superior Court. He says he signed up with AT&T Mobility because of its ads that promised a cash rebate. But he says AT&T and Cingular "failed to adequately disclose to those customers the fact that rebates would be provided not by way of a check or cash but rather in the form of a VISA debit card, which in most, if not all, cases included an expiration date for usage. In addition, the cards have proven difficult to use and often consumers are left with essentially useless small balances." The complaint adds that "by creating a national policy whereby defendant issued VISA debit cards as rebates instead of a check or cash, defendant has dramatically increased the probability that card users will end up with partial and essentially unusable balances, in which funds all revert to defendant." Respinto wants AT&T to disgorge all the money it got through the rebate promotions, restitution for class members and an injunction. A copy of the Complaint in Respinto v. AT&T Mobility LLC fka Cingular Wireless, Case No. 2009CV175984 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/13/RebateVisa.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Todd Harvey, Esq. BURKE HARVEY & FRANKOWSKI, LLC 2151 Highland Ave., Suite 120 Birmingham, AL 35205 - and - Stephen B. Morris, Esq. MORRIS & ASSOCIATES 444 West C Street, Suite 300 Dan Diego, CA 92101 CALAMP CORP: Pursuing Dismissal of Misrepresentation Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ CalAmp Corp. continues to pursue the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against the company, the former owner of its Aercept business unit and one of Aercept's distributors. The class has not been certified in the lawsuit filed in November 2008. The lawsuit alleges that Aercept made misrepresentations when the plaintiff purchased analog vehicle tracking devices in 2005, which was prior to CalAmp's acquisition of Aercept in an asset purchase. The tracking devices ceased functioning in early 2008 due to termination of analog service by the wireless network operators. The company is seeking dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis that the assertion of successor liability is not supported by the law or the facts, according to the company's Oct. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 29, 2009. CalAmp Corp. -- http://www.calamp.com/-- is a provider of wireless communications solutions that enable anytime/anywhere access. The company has two segments: Wireless DataCom Division and Satellite Division. CalAmp's Wireless DataCom Division services the public safety, industrial monitoring and controls, and mobile resource management market segments with wireless solutions built on communications technology platforms that include licensed narrowband, unlicensed broadband and cellular networks. CalAmp's Satellite Division supplies outdoor customer premise equipment to the United States Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) market. CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. continue to face the remaining claims in a consolidated lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class, according to CarMax, Inc.'s Oct. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2009. On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class-action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, "Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC," and "Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC," were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involve: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and (5) unfair competition. The putative class consists of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The plaintiffs have indicated that they will appeal the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. In addition to the plaintiffs' overtime claim, the claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition. On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving related legal issues. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries. The company is a retailer of used cars. CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Approve "Veliz" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court has has yet to issue a decision on the proposed settlement of class action claims in Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corp., et al., Case No. 03-cv-1180 (N.D. Calif.) (Armstrong, J.). The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers exempt employees. It also asserts related Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging additional state law wage and hour claims under the laws of these states: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. On Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15 states only with respect to the putative class members that may litigate their claims in court. No determination has yet been made by the court or an arbitrator regarding class certification. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2008) Claims made in the Veliz action are pending before the United States District Court, Northern District of California and Judge Bruce Meyerson (Ret.), an Arbitrator selected by the parties. On Aug. 5, 2009, the parties in the Veliz action reached a settlement in principle, according to the company's Oct. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009 Representing the plaintiffs is: Scott A. Kronland, Esq. Altshuler, Berzon et al. 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-421-7151 Fax: 415-362-8064 E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com Representing the company is: Cheryl A. Hipp, Esq. Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 516-479-8365 DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Defends Wage and Hour Lawsuit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Darden Restaurants, Inc., is defending a purported wage and hour class action in New York, according to the company's Oct. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 30, 2009. Like other restaurant chains and retail employers, in a few states the company has been faced with allegations of purported class-wide wage and hour violations. In April 2009, a former Red Lobster employee filed a purported class action in New York state court, alleging wage and hour violations and meal and rest break practices in violation of New York law, seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual dining restaurant company. The company owns and operates the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in the U.S. and Canada. DTD ENTERPRISES: High Court Notes Concern Over Class-Action Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristina Peterson, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined two conservative justices on Tuesday to voice concern over automatically sticking a dating business with full court costs in a class-action lawsuit. The high court declined to hear the case, DTD Enterprises, Inc. v. Janice Wells, No. 08-1407, but a trio of justices noted it raised important constitutional issues. Justice Sotomayor and Chief Justice John Roberts joined a statement from Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote, saying that placing all the plaintiff's costs of notifying members of a class-action suit on the defending business, simply because the company could afford it, raised serious questions. DTD Enterprises, or the Together Dating Service, initially sued Wells in 2007 when the New Jersey resident stopped making payments on her $3,195 balance. In response, Wells filed a class-action complaint, claiming the dating service had provided unsuitable introductions to men and violated New Jersey consumer protection laws. In its brief for the Superior Court of New Jersey, the dating referral service explained it tries to match compatible individuals based on client profiles and "a comprehensive questionnaire." Last year the lower court judge ordered that the dating service pay the costs of compiling a database of class members -- anyone who had signed a similar membership agreement -- and informing them of the lawsuit. DTD Enterprises objected to shouldering the costs before the class-action suit's underlying validity had been proven. On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court denied the dating service's appeal, noting that the case had skipped the appellate level and that the petitioner's current bankruptcy proceedings put a stay on its civil case. But Justices Sotomayor, Roberts and Kennedy agreed the case raised due process concerns. "There is considerable force to the argument that a hearing in which the trial court does not consider the underlying merits of the class-action suit is not consistent with due process," Justice Kennedy wrote. DTD Enterprises is represented by: Vano I. Haroutunian, Esq. Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C. 729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 575-7900 E-mail: vharoutunian@ballonstoll.com Ms. Wells is represented by: Richard Galex, Esq. Galex Wolf, LLC 1520 U.S. Hwy. 130, Ste. 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08092 Telephone: (732) 257-0050 GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Pa. Jury Awards $2.5 Mil. in First Paxil Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- Jef Feeley and Sophia Pearson at Bloomberg News reports that a jury awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiff in Kilker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. dba GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 2007-001813 (Pa. Common Pleas Ct., Philadelphia Cty.) -- the first of 600 cases alleging that the drug company's Paxil antidepressant caused birth defects. Jurors in state court in Philadelphia deliberated about seven hours over two days before finding Glaxo failed to properly warn doctors and pregnant users that Paxil could cause birth defects. The panel awarded $2.5 million in compensatory damages to the family of Lyam Kilker. The 3-year-old was born with heart defects his mother blamed on the drug. "The first win is always huge, especially when you get a jury saying the drug caused the injury," Sean Tracey, Kilker's lawyer, said in an interview with Bloomberg News after the jury reached its decision. It's the first time a jury has considered claims that Glaxo, the U.K.'s largest drugmaker, knew Paxil caused birth defects and hid those risks to increase profits. The drug, approved for U.S. use in 1992, generated about $942 million in sales last year, or 2.1 percent of Glaxo's total revenue. "We're disappointed with the verdict and I think we'll be filing an appeal," Joseph O'Neil, one of Glaxo�?Ts lawyers, told Bloomberg. GREEN BULLION: Cash4Gold Runs a Game, Class Action Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that Cash4Gold defrauds people by offering to pay fair value for gold jewelry, then repeatedly "loses" the jewelry and claims not to have received it, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. The class claims Cash4Gold and its corporate parent, Green Bullion Financial Services, claim to have an ironclad 12-day return policy, but often melt the gold they get before the period has elapsed, and tried to silence former employees who "dare to expose the fraud." Named plaintiffs Elizabeth Kirts and Rachel Bernhardt say Cash4Gold advertises heavily in print, on the Internet and TV, including a "media blitz" during the February 2009 Super Bowl broadcast. Cash4Gold is run out of Pompano Beach, Fla., according to the 65-page complaint, which contains another 77 pages of exhibits. The ads portray the company as a "professional, fair and truthful company" that efficiently performs appraisals and provides quick cash payments. Cash4Gold claims on its Web site that it is unique "because we own our own refinery. Which means no middlemen and that means more case for you," the complaint states. It also claims that when a customer's package arrives, its contents are photographed, inventoried and treated with the utmost care. All of these claims are untrue, the complaint states. When the company does not blame the U.S. Postal Service for losing the jewelry, it delays mailing checks so that they'll arrive after the 12-day return period has expired. And it has a customer service system designed to frustrate customers so that they'll give up trying to get refunds, the complaint states. "Once the customer sends the jewelry, the company takes it either by 'losing it or by providing low appraisal rate the customer has no choice but to accept due to the expiration of the return period," the complaint said. "In each case the company wins, the customers lose." The class demands punitive damages for consumer fraud, false and misleading statements and false advertising. A copy of the Complaint in Kirts, et al. v. Green Bullion Financial Services, LLC dba Cash4Gold, et al., Case No. 09-cv- 7361 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/13/Cash4Gold.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: John G. Balestriere, Esq. Anat Maytal, Esq. BALESTRIERE LANZA PLLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-374-5401 - and - Joseph A. Ferrucci, Esq. BROWN AND CHARBONNEAU LLP 420 Exchange, Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92602 Telephone: 714-505-3000 KB HOME: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Judgment Motion in "Bagley" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Nov. 9, 2009, hearing is scheduled to consider the motion for summary judgment dismissal of all of the plaintiffs' claims in the purported class-action lawsuit captioned Bagley et al., v. KB Home, et al., Case No. 07-cv-01754 (C.D. Calif.) (Schiavelli, J.). On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed an action against against the company, its directors, and certain of its current and former officers under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132. On April 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Tolan Beck and Rod Hughes as additional plaintiffs and dismissing certain individuals as defendants. All four plaintiffs claim to be former employees of KB Home who participated in the KB Home 401(k) Savings Plan. They allege on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated that all defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs and purported class members under ERISA by failing to disclose information to and providing misleading information to participants in the Plan about alleged prior stock option backdating practices of the Company and by failing to remove the Company's stock as an investment option under the Plan. The plaintiffs allege that this breach of fiduciary duties caused them to earn less on their Plan accounts than they would have earned but for defendants' alleged breach. They seek unspecified money damages and injunctive and other equitable relief. On May 16, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the basis that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a claim against the company. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the dismissal motion on June 20, 2008. The company filed its reply in support of the motion in July and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for Aug. 4, 2008. The hearing on the motion was held on Sept. 8, 2008. On Oct. 6, 2008, the court issued its order. The court denied the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the duty to monitor and granted the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure. The court also denied a separate motion to dismiss filed by the individual defendants based on the standing of plaintiffs to sue. The company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on Nov. 5, 2008. On Nov. 24, 2008, the court approved a stipulation to stay all discovery and other proceedings through Feb. 6, 2009, in order to allow the parties time to attempt to settle the plaintiffs' claims through mediation. A mediation session was held on Jan. 27, 2009, but a settlement has not been reached. The court has tentatively scheduled the trial to begin on Nov. 9, 2010. On Aug. 31, 2009, the company filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal of all of plaintiffs' claims against it. The company's co-defendants also joined in the motion, according to its Oct. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2009. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephen J Fearon, Jr., Esq. Squitieri & Fearon LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-421-6492 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com - and - Stephen M. Fishback, Esq. Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP 18425 Burbank Boulevard Suite 610 Tarzana, CA 91356-6918 Phone: 818-342-7442 Fax: 818-342-7616 E-mail: sfishback@kfjlegal.com Representing the defendants are: Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq. Munger Tolles & Olson 355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: 213-683-9100 E-mail: marc.dworsky@mto.com - and - Michael M. Farhang, Esq. Gibson Dunn and Crutcher 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213-229-7005 E-mail: mfarhang@gibsondunn.com KELLY SERVICES: Settles Wage & Hour Class Action for $11 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that an $11 million settlement in a wage and hours class action filed against the temporary staffing company Kelly Girl has been approved by a federal judge. Workforce Management indicates that: -- $10 million of the settlement amount is allocated for current and former temporary workers in Illinois who did not receive vacation pay between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2008, and -- $1 million of the settlement amount is allocated for temporary workers in non-clerical and non-professional positions between January 1, 2006, and August 27, 2007, who did not receive wage and payment notices as required by the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. Arrez, et al. v. Kelly Services, In., Case No. 07-cv-10289 (N.D. Ill.) (Leinenweber, J.), reportedly includes some 96,000 temporary workers, making it one of the largest class actions to take place in Illinois. LAWSON SOFTWARE: Certification Bid in "Cruz" Labor Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for certification of a labor-related class-action lawsuit captioned Cruz, et al. v. Lawson Software, Inc., et al. (Case No. 08-cv-05900 (D. Minn.), is pending. The punitive class-action lawsuit was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 20, 2008, on behalf of current and former business, systems, and technical consultants. The suit, Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case No. 08-cv-04704 (S.D.N.Y.), alleges that the company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and alleges violations of state record-keeping requirements. It also alleges certain violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and unjust enrichment. The relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. The company successfully moved the case from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the District of Minnesota. The Minnesota Federal District Court has conditionally certified the case under the FLSA as a collective action and granted the company's motion to dismiss the two ERISA counts. The Plaintiffs then moved to amend the complaint to assert Minnesota state FLSA causes of action, and that motion was granted. Plaintiffs filed a motion for Rule 23 certification to treat the case as a class action, according to the company's Oct. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009. Representing the plaintiffs is: Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C., DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 E-mail: lgreen@cmht.com Representing the defendants are: Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq. Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 190 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501 Phone: 516-747-0300 Fax: 516-747-0653 E-mail: lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com - and - Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq. Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A. 220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-373-8511 Fax: 612-338-0535 E-mail: smcgrane@felhaber.com MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Mediation in Calif. Securities Suits Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mediation in purported securities class action lawsuits filed against MRV Communications, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, is ongoing. Between June 10, 2008 and Aug. 15, 2008, five purported stockholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California and one derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California against the company and certain of our current and former officers and directors. The five lawsuits filed in the Central District of California were consolidated. Claims are asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a), of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations set forth in the complaints are based on facts disclosed in the company's press release of June 5, 2008, which was included as Exhibit 99.1 to its Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 6, 2008. The complaints seek to recover from the defendants unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, to require the company to undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options and to recover costs of suit, including legal and other professional fees and other equitable relief. The plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits and the defendants have stipulated to a postponement of further action until after the issuance by MRV of its restated financial statements, and have further agreed to mediation of the litigations, according to the company's Oct. 8, 2009, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. MRV Communications, Inc. -- http://www.mrv.com/-- is a supplier of communications equipment and services to carriers, governments and enterprise customers, worldwide. The company is a supplier of optical components, primarily through its wholly owned subsidiaries: Source Photonics and Fiberxon. The company conducts its business along three principal segments: the network equipment group, the network integration group and the optical components group. PEPSI BOTTLING: Judgment Bid in Consolidated Complaint Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Motions for summary judgment in a consolidated stockholder class action complaint against The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., are pending. Beginning on April 22, 2009, seven putative stockholder class action complaints challenging the April 19 proposal were filed against the company and the individual members of the Board of Directors of the company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the defendants had breached or would breach their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of the company in connection with the April 19 proposal. The Delaware Lawsuits were consolidated on June 5, 2009, and an amended complaint was filed on June 19, 2009. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief alleging, among other things, that the defendants have breached or will breach their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of the company, that the April 19 proposal and the transactions contemplated thereunder were not entirely fair to the public stockholders, that PepsiCo had retaliated or would retaliate against the company for rejecting the April 19 proposal, and that certain provisions of the company's certificate of incorporation are invalid and/or inapplicable to the April 19 proposal and the pending merger. On July 23, 2009, motions for partial summary judgment were filed concerning the plaintiffs' allegations relating to the company's certificate of incorporation, according to the its Oct. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009. The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. -- http://www.pbg.com/-- is a wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc. PBG operates carbonated soft drinks and other ready-to-drink beverages. It conducts business in all or a portion of the United States, Mexico, Canada, Spain, Russia, Greece and Turkey. PBG is the manufacturer, seller and distributor of Pepsi-Cola beverages. In some of its territories the company has the right to manufacture, sell and distribute soft drink products of companies other than PepsiCo, including Dr Pepper, Crush and Squirt. It also has the right in some of its territories to manufacture, sell and distribute beverages under trademarks that PBG owns, including Electropura, e-puramr and Garci Crespo. PEPSI BOTTLING: Motions to Dismiss Two Stockholder Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss two putative stockholder class action complaints against The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., are pending. Beginning on April 29, 2009, two putative stockholder class action complaints were filed against the company and members of its Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. The complaints seek, among other things, damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief and allege, among other things, that the defendants have breached or will breach their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of the company, that the April 19 proposal and the transactions contemplated thereunder were not entirely fair to the public stockholders of the company, and that the defensive measures implemented by the company were not being used to maximize stockholder value. On June 8, 2009, the company filed Motions to Dismiss (or, in the alternative, to Stay), the actions in favor of the previously filed actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. As of June 26, 2009, the company's Motions were fully briefed and submitted to the Court, according to its Oct. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009. The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. -- http://www.pbg.com/-- is a wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc. PBG operates carbonated soft drinks and other ready-to-drink beverages. It conducts business in all or a portion of the United States, Mexico, Canada, Spain, Russia, Greece and Turkey. PBG is the manufacturer, seller and distributor of Pepsi-Cola beverages. In some of its territories the company has the right to manufacture, sell and distribute soft drink products of companies other than PepsiCo, including Dr Pepper, Crush and Squirt. It also has the right in some of its territories to manufacture, sell and distribute beverages under trademarks that PBG owns, including Electropura, e-puramr and Garci Crespo. PEPSI BOTTLING: Seeks to Dismiss Stockholder Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. seeks to dismiss a putative stockholder class action complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. On May 8, 2009, the complaint was filed against the company and the members of the Board of Directors of the company other than John C. Compton and Cynthia M. Trudell. The complaint alleged that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of the company by depriving those stockholders of the full and fair value of their shares by failing to accept PepsiCo's April 19 proposal to acquire the company or to negotiate with PepsiCo after that proposal was made and by adopting certain defensive measures. On June 8, 2009, the company filed Motions to Dismiss (or, in the alternative, to Stay) this action in favor of the previously filed actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition to the Motion. On Aug. 10, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, adding as defendants PepsiCo, Mr. Compton and Ms. Trudell. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief and alleges, among other things, that the defendants have breached or will breach their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of the company and that the pending merger is not entirely fair to the public stockholders of the company. On Aug. 27, 2009, the company again filed Motions to Dismiss (or, in the alternative, to Stay) this action in favor of the previously filed actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, according to the company's Oct. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 5, 2009. The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. -- http://www.pbg.com/-- is a wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc. PBG operates carbonated soft drinks and other ready-to-drink beverages. It conducts business in all or a portion of the United States, Mexico, Canada, Spain, Russia, Greece and Turkey. PBG is the manufacturer, seller and distributor of Pepsi-Cola beverages. In some of its territories the company has the right to manufacture, sell and distribute soft drink products of companies other than PepsiCo, including Dr Pepper, Crush and Squirt. It also has the right in some of its territories to manufacture, sell and distribute beverages under trademarks that PBG owns, including Electropura, e-puramr and Garci Crespo. REX ENERGY: Opposes Certification in Suit Over H2S Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rex Energy Corporation opposes the certification of the class and the claims against PennTex Resources Illinois, Inc and Rex Energy Operating Corp. in a lawsuit concerning complaints of hydrogen sulfide emissions from the Lawrence Field. PennTex Illinois and Rex Operating are defendants in a class action lawsuit asserting that the operation of oil wells that are controlled, owned or operated by PennTex Illinois and Rex Operating has resulted in contamination of the areas surrounding Bridgeport and Petrolia, Illinois, with hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The complaint, as amended, asserts several causes of action, including violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, violation of the federal Resource Conservation And Recovery Act, negligence, private nuisance, trespass, and willful and wanton misconduct. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and Illinois common law, compensatory and other damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, the complaint seeks the creation of a court-supervised, defendant-financed fund to pay for medical monitoring for the plaintiffs and others in the class area. The plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification on Jan. 22, 2008. PennTex Illinois and Rex Operating filed a joint motion opposing class certification on Feb. 22, 2008, and various supplements were filed by both parties after that date. On Dec. 19, 2008, the district court issued a preliminary ruling on certification, indicating its conclusion that several of the class action prerequisites were met and that it was likely to certify a class to adjudicate two issues relating to the emission of H2S in the putative class area, while reserving all remaining issues for subsequent individual adjudications. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in reference to the plaintiffs' medical monitoring claim. The district court requested that the plaintiffs submit a revised class definition consistent with its order, which was submitted by the plaintiffs on Jan. 16, 2009. On Jan. 28, 2009, the defendants filed an objection to the plaintiffs' revised class definition and requested that the district court deny the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Feb. 26, 2009, the district court issued an order approving the geographic scope of the plaintiffs' revised class definition. In its order, the district court denied plaintiffs' request to include all residents and landowners within the geographic area of the class owning property since Oct. 17, 2006, the date the lawsuit was filed, and limited the class to only current property owners. To date, the district court has not set a date for the final pre-trial conference or a trial date. On March 11, 2009, PennTex Illinois and Rex Operating filed a petition for leave to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to appeal the class certification order on an interlocutory basis, according to the company's Oct. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008 . Rex Energy Corporation -- http://www.rexenergy.com/-- is an independent oil and gas company operating in the Illinois Basin and the Appalachian Basin. RITE AID: Settlement with Store Managers Pending Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corp. anticipates obtaining final court approval of the wage-and-hour class action lawsuit settlement in the fall of 2009, according to its Oct. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 29, 2009. In March 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the class action lawsuit brought against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for alleged violations of California wage-and-hour law. The plaintiff alleged that the company improperly classified store managers in California as exempt under the law, making them ineligible for overtime wages. The plaintiff sought to require the company to pay overtime wages back to May 9, 2001, to the class of more than 1,200 current and former store managers. The company says that store managers were and are properly classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of California law. On March 27, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle with the plaintiff under which, subject to approval of the court, the company will resolve this lawsuit for $6.9 million. Preliminary court approval of the settlement was granted in May 2009. Rite Aid Corp. -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is a retail drugstore chain in the United States. The company operates its drugstores in 31 states across the United States and in the District of Columbia. In its stores, the company sells prescription drugs and an assortment of other merchandise, which it calls front-end products. Front end products include over- the-counter medications, health and beauty aids, personal care items, cosmetics, household items, beverages, convenience foods, greeting cards, seasonal merchandise and numerous other everyday and convenience products, as well as photo processing. It offers approximately 3,000 products under the Rite Aid private brand. SPECTRUM GROUP: Fulfills Securities Suit Settlement Obligations --------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Group International, Inc. has no further obligation or liability under the In re Escala Group, Inc. Securities Litigation settlement agreement, according to the company's Oct. 8, 2009, Form 10--K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. On Dec. 3, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order and final judgment granting final approval of the settlement of a securities class- action against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, titled, "In re Escala Group, Inc. Securities Litigation." The order and final judgment granting final approval of the settlement of the class-action required the company to contribute an aggregate of $6,000,000 in cash and 4,000,000 newly issued shares of its common stock to a settlement fund for the benefit of the class. As of June 30, 2009, the date of its latest Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company has contributed the full $6,000,000 in cash to the settlement fund, and has issued to plaintiffs' counsel an aggregate of 772,430 shares of the company's common stock in payment of a portion of their court-approved legal fees. On Jan. 29, 2009, the company entered into a contract with plaintiffs' counsel in the securities class-action providing for Spectrum to repurchase 772,430 shares that it had issued to such counsel as payment of its court-approved legal fees, at a purchase price of $1.55 per share. This transaction closed on Feb. 9, 2009, at which time those shares were cancelled and returned to the status of authorized but unissued shares. On Oct. 1, 2009, the company issued the remaining 3,277,777 shares of common stock to the settlement fund. These shares are expected to be distributed to the claimants shortly. Spectrum Group International, Inc. -- http://www.spectrumgi.com/ -- formerly Escala Group Inc., is a global collectibles network. The Company is an auctioneer of stamps, coins, arms, armor and militaria, and other memorabilia, targeting both collectors and dealers. Escala is also a merchant/dealer of certain collectibles and trader of precious metals. Escala conducts its operations in two business segments: collectibles and trading. The Company, through its subsidiaries focus on the Philatelic (stamps) side of the collectibles segments and it includes H.R. Harmer, Inc. and Nutmeg Stamp Sales, Inc., both in North America; Corinphila Auktionen of Zurich, Switzerland and Heinrich Kohler Auktionshaus of Wiesbaden, Germany, both in its European division; and John Bull Stamp Auctions, Ltd., which operates within Asia division. The trading segment of the Company operates through precious metals. It is one of the private sellers of bullion coins and bullion gold, silver and platinum to the wholesale marketplace. TRAVELEX CURRENCY: ATM Fee Refund Claims Due by Nov. 2, 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------ Individuals who used the automated teller machine operated by Travelex Currency Services, Inc., located near Door 5 of Southwest Florida International Airport at 11000 Terminal Access Rd., in Ft. Myers, Fla., between April 10, 2008, and April 10, 2009, and were charged a transaction fee for the use of that ATM, may file claims in Escalante v. Travelex Currency Services, Inc. f/k/a Travelex America, Inc. d/b/a Travelex, Case No. 09 C 2209 (N.D. Ill.) (Ashman, J.), to share in a $100,000 Settlement Fund, subject to $1,000 per claimant. Information about the litigation is available on-line at: http://www.caclawyers.com/travelex/ The Plaintiff class is represented by: Lance A. Raphael, Esq. Stacy M. Bardo, Esq. Allison A. Krumhorn, Esq. THE CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C. 180 W. Washington St., Ste. 700 Chicago, IL 60602 Travelex is represented by: Brian J. Hurst, Esq. Adam T. Dougherty, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 2300 Trammell Crow Center 2001 Ross Ave. Dallas, TX 75201 YAHOO! INC: Notice of Proposed Pay-Per-Click Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Rust Consulting, Inc., has distributed notices of a proposed class action settlement in In re Yahoo! Litigation, Case No. CV- 06-2737 CAS (C.D. Cal.). A copy of the notice and other information about the settlement and litigation is available at http://www.inreyahoosettlement.com/ The Class consists of all individuals or entities that purchased pay-per-click text advertising in the U.S. Marketplace, whether directly from Yahoo! or its predecessors Overture Services, Inc., or GoTo.com, Inc., or indirectly from an advertising agent, at any time from May 1, 2000, until September 22, 2009. Pay-per-click text advertising includes the Yahoo! Search Marketing products currently known as "Sponsored Search" and "Content Match," as well as predecessor products provided by Overture Services, Inc. and GoTo.com, Inc. Excluded from the Class are Yahoo!, Overture Services, Inc. or GoTo.com, Inc. customers that did not purchase payper- click text advertising in the U.S. Marketplace. (For example, any Yahoo! customer that only purchased banner advertising, but not pay-per- click text advertising, is not part of the Class.) The "U.S. Marketplace" refers to Yahoo!'s ad "marketplace" covering the United States and English-speaking Canada. The Plaintiff Class is represented by: Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. BONI & ZACK LLC 15 Saint Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com - and - Michael D. Donovan, Esq. DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com Yahoo! is represented by: Larry W. McFarland, Esq. Dennis L. Wilson, Esq. KEATS MCFARLAND & WILSON LLP 9720 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 E-mail: lmcfarland@kmwlaw.com dwilson@kmwlaw.com ********* 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 * * *