/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091216.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 248 Headlines AUBURN UNIVERSITY: Class Action Asserts Race-Based Wage Disparity AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Calif. Suit Challenges "Actual Cash Value" BERGE FORD: Dealer Sued in Airz. for Skimming Employee Wages CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Motor Fuel Practices Suit Ongoing CASEY'S GENERAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement CENTRO: Australian Court to Examine Bid for Action Against PwC HAWK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Class Certification in Suit v. Unit JONES FINANCIAL: Edward Jones' Motion to Dismiss Suit Pending KAHALA HOTEL: Class Action Suit Alleges Improperly Withheld Tips KRISPY KREME: Court-Ordered Mediation Scheduled for January 2010 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Three Right-of-Way Suits Remain Stayed LEVEL 3 COMMS: "Kingsborough" Settlement's Final Approval Denied LEVEL 3 COMMS: Wants Consolidated Suit in Colorado Dismissed LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Three ERISA Suits Consolidated MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Continues MDL 1285: 21 States Settle Vitamin Antitrust Suit for $25 Mil. MICROSOFT CORP: Another Sidekick Suit filed in Cook County NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retired Players Settlement Gets Final Approval NEUROGEN CORP: Faces Lawsuit Over Merger Plan with Ligand Pharma PALM INC: Sued, with Sprint Nextel, for "Catastrophic Data Loss" RAIT FINANCIAL: E.D. Pa. Approves Investor Litigation Settlement SELECTREMEDY: Class Action Says Warehouse Workers Shortchanged SILICONE IMPLANTS: O'Quinn Estate Agrees to Pay $46.5 Million SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued, with Palm, for "Catastrophic Data Loss" SWITCH & DATA: M.D. Fla. Shareholder Complaint Attacks CEO VCG HOLDING: Faces "Sutton" Complaint over Lowrie's Buy Proposal WESTERN CULINARY: Oregon Court Certifies Class of Students YTB INTERNATIONAL: No Ruling Yet on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave ZUMIEZ INC: Alameda Country Court Denies Approval of Settlement ZUMIEZ INC: "Berg" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Still Pending ********* AUBURN UNIVERSITY: Class Action Asserts Race-Based Wage Disparity ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Alabama Press-Register reports that a class action lawsuit is being filed against Auburn University on behalf of a group of black building services workers who allege they are being paid less than white workers in their department, the Auburn Plainsman student newspaper reports. The black employees are being represented by: Arthur L. Dowdell, Esq. 909 Pleasant Avenue Auburn, AL 36832 Telephone: 334-524-2074 - and - Julian L. McPhillips, Jr., Esq. 516 South Perry St. Montgomery, AL 36101 Telephone: 334-262-1911 "I think the only way we will subside (the problem of racial discrimination at Auburn) is if we file a class action lawsuit," Mr. Dowdell said. "Because it's clear that Auburn University, time after time, has violated since 1999, since I've been fighting, that they keep on violating the rights of its own workers." According to an Associated Press report, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is investigating the claims that some black custodial employees in the Auburn University Student Center are being paid less that white co-workers. The complaint is also being investigated by Auburn's Office of Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity. A spokesman for the employees, Tyrone Durrell, said the complaint started after a paycheck stub was left in a break room for other workers to see. Auburn University spokesman Mike Clardy said in The Associated Press report that school officials were working to resolve the complaint promptly. Mr. Dowdell and his brother, the Rev. Larry Taylor, delivered their demands to a representative for Auburn University President Jay Gogue. Mr. Gogue's secretary Jolene Patterson informed them he was out of town and accepted the sheet of paper listing their demands. Patterson said she would give the list to administration officials. Mr. Dowdell said in the Plainsman report that he wants Mr. Gogue to respond to his demands because he doesn't think human resources has done enough. "You come back to Auburn you see all these pretty buildings, all these pretty flowers, and you're thinking everything is beautiful," Rev. Taylor was quoted as saying. "But then, all of a sudden, you find a thorn, something there that don't need to be there." AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Calif. Suit Challenges "Actual Cash Value" ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the Automobile Club of Southern California insures cars for "actual cash value" but refuses to honor its promise when the vehicle is stolen or totaled, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. BERGE FORD: Dealer Sued in Airz. for Skimming Employee Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a Ford dealership deducts $62.50 a month from its workers' paychecks for "use of [the dealership's] software," and its employees say that Berge Ford told them they had to submit to it "or get fired." The workers' class action claims the deduction is illegal and they never agreed to it. The six named plaintiffs sued Berge Ford in Maricopa County Court. They say they never signed an agreement that the money could be deducted from their wages, but the Ford dealer told them to "do it or get fired," their attorney Harry Friedlander said in an interview. Berge Ford, of Mesa, Ariz., has a computer program that helps employees keep track of prospective clients, Friedlander says. "They made it available to everyone and started to take the deductions out," the attorney told Ms. Ross. The class may include more than 50 employees or former employees, Mr. Friedlander said. The complaint claims the deductions violate A.R.S. Sec. 23-352. The workers originally filed the complaint pro se at the Highland Regional Justice Court, but Mr. Friedlander dismissed it and refiled in county court. The class seeks treble damages for violations of state employment law, and attorney's fees. A copy of the Complaint in LaBrue, et al. v. Berge Ford, Inc., Case No. CV2009-093717 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/09/BergeFord.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harry P. Freidlander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HARRY P. FRIEDLANDER 1837 South Mesa Drive, #C-100 Mesa, AZ 85210 Telephone: 480-926-0902 CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Motor Fuel Practices Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation against Casey's General Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City. The company is named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel" cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers. The complaints generally allege that the company, along with numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60-degrees Fahrenheit. Fuel is measured at 60-degrees Fahrenheit in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri. The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all states. The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and punitive damages. These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits now pending in 28 jurisdictions, including 25 states, Guam, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, against a wide range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and/or market gasoline products in the United States. On June 18, 2007, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases (officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation") be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification. Discovery efforts by both sides are being pursued No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois. CASEY'S GENERAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa gave its final approval to the settlement of two purported collective and class actions filed against Casey's General Stores, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. In April 2009, the company and five individual directors or officers entered into settlement agreements with plaintiffs in the two suits, which are: -- Kristina Jones, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc., Robert J. Myers, Ronald M. Lamb, Terry W. Handley, Robert C. Ford, and Julia L. Jackowski, individually; and -- Connie Wineland, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc., Robert J. Myers, Ronald M. Lamb, Terry W. Handley, Robert C. Ford, and Julia L. Jackowski. The two actions were brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent approximately 7,800 current and former assistant managers (Jones action) and approximately 76,000 current and former non- management-level store employees (Wineland action). The plaintiffs generally sought back wages, liquidated damages, penalties, attorneys fees and costs, and equitable relief pursuant to various federal and state wage and hour laws and related common law causes of action. The settlement agreements have been filed with the Court as attachments to the parties' joint motions for approval of the settlements, and a hearing on the joint motions was held on May 18, 2009. Following the hearing, the Court entered Orders granting preliminary approval of the settlement, approving the Notices of Class Action and Claim Forms to be distributed to class members. Following a hearing on Oct. 9, 2009, the Court entered an order dated Oct. 22, 2009 granting the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Attorneys Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Separate Awards for named Plaintiffs and Deponents. The actions were dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, and the settlement class members are permanently enjoined from filing, joining, or prosecuting any claims, suits or administrative proceedings regarding claims released by the settlement. Under the settlement agreements, the company paid all putative plaintiffs and their counsel in both actions a total of $11.7 million (inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs); the company's directors and officers insurance carrier paid $3.0 million of that amount on behalf of all defendants. The company paid $277,000 in related settlement administration expenses. In exchange, the company has been released from the state law claims of all putative plaintiffs who did not opt-out of the settlement for any covered claims arising since May 7, 2005 in the Jones action and since Jan. 10, 2006 in the Wineland action. In addition, any plaintiffs who previously opted in to the putative collective actions released any claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising since Nov. 1, 2004 in the Jones action and since April 15, 2005 in the Wineland action. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the company expressly denied any and all liability to the plaintiffs. The settlement monies were distributed on Nov. 12, 2009. Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois. CENTRO: Australian Court to Examine Bid for Action Against PwC -------------------------------------------------------------- Lucy Battersby at The Age reports that the Federal Court will consider an application by lawyers representing Centro shareholders to bring direct action against the company's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers. Barrister Michael Lee, acting for Maurice Blackburn, asked Justice Donnell Ryan for permission to add PwC to a claim against Centro Properties Group and Centro Retail Group. The property companies are being sued by former and present shareholders for allegedly concealing from the market important financial information that, once it became known, caused the share price to plummet. Last week Maurice Blackburn listed three grounds on which PwC should be added to proceedings: the auditing firm had engaged in false, misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the June 2007 accounts of Centro and its listed offshoot Centro Retail; PwC made representations to Centro about its disclosure obligations that were false, misleading or deceptive; a controlled entity of PwC, PwC Securities, allegedly made misleading and deceptive statements in a product disclosure statement in relation to a merger of Centro Retail and another Centro entity, the Centro Shopping America fund. Richard McHugh, SC, representing PwC, told Ms. Battersby that the second ground "makes factual assertions which are a fantasy for which there is no proper basis and which could never be properly certified." Two concurrent class actions from shareholders are seeking about $600 million in damages. Centro filed a cross-claim against PwC in May, arguing that as the company's auditor it should share liability for any shareholder compensation. Lawyers from Slater & Gordon, which is running the second class action, said they would also seek leave to take direct action against PwC. HAWK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Class Certification in Suit v. Unit --------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma has yet to rule on the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in a purported class action against Hawk Corp.'s subsidiary, Wellman Products Group, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Oct. 16, 2007, a lawsuit captioned Paul Mickle v. Wellman Products Group, LLC, Case No. CJ 2007 06914 was filed in the District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Mr. Mickle alleges violation of wage and hour laws by Wellman Products. The case purports to be a class action on behalf of Mr. Mickle and other allegedly "similarly situated" employees. Discovery as to the class certification is finished. The plaintiffs have filed their Motion for Class Certification, and all briefing on the issue is also finished. An evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification occurred on July 1 and 2, 2009, in Tulsa County District Court. Hawk Corp. -- http://www.hawkcorp.com/-- is a supplier of friction products for industrial, aerospace, agricultural and performance applications. Through its subsidiaries, the company operates in the friction products segment. JONES FINANCIAL: Edward Jones' Motion to Dismiss Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The motion of Edward Jones & Co., L.P., along with other defendants, to dismiss the plaintiffs' Securities Act Claims over the sale of Lehman Bonds is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to The Jones Financial Cos., L.L.L.P.'s Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 25, 2009. Edward Jones is the principal operating subsidiary of Jones Financial. In October 2008, a class action suit was filed in Arkansas state court, Saline County, under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the 1933 Act, against certain officers and directors of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and a syndicate of underwriters, including Edward Jones, of Lehman Bonds sold pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus dated May 30, 2006 and various prospectus supplements dated Oct. 22, 2006 and thereafter. In November 2008, a similar suit was filed in Arkansas state court, Benton County against the same defendants stemming from the sale of 6.5% Lehman Bonds maturing Oct. 25, 2007 pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus and prospectus supplement dated Aug. 2, 2007. Plaintiffs in both actions allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations to the purchasers of the Lehman Bonds. While each lawsuit relates to a different series of Lehman Bonds, the plaintiffs in each suit are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. In February 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these two actions to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with similar actions currently pending in the SDNY. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' Securities Act Claims in April 2009, which is currently pending in the SDNY. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P -- http://www.edwardjones.com/-- is the parent of Edward Jones, an investment brokerage network catering to individual investors. Serving some 7 million clients, the "Wal-Mart of Wall Street" has thousands of satellite-linked offices in all 50 states (mainly in rural communities and suburbs), plus Canada and the UK. KAHALA HOTEL: Class Action Suit Alleges Improperly Withheld Tips ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Daysog at the Honolulu Advertiser reports that thousands of customers of the Kahala Hotel & Resort are now part of a lawsuit alleging that the hotel's tipping policy was deceptive. Last week, Circuit Judge Gary Chang granted class-action status to a 2008 suit by local resident Jason Kawakami, who said the hotel charged him more than $4,800 in service fees but did not disclose that only portions of the fee would go to hotel employees. The ruling increases the potential damages that the hotel would have to pay if it loses the suit. According to Mr. Kawakami's attorneys: John Francis Perkin, Esq. Brandee J.K. Faria, Esq. PERKIN & FARIA, LLLC Davies Pacific Center 841 Bishop St., Ste. 2000 Honolulu, HI 96813 more than 4,300 customers have been billed for the service fees by the hotel. "This really gives us a chance to pursue the claims on behalf of all consumers who have been hit by the service charge," Mr. Perkin told Mr. Daysog. The Hotel is represented by: Lisa W. Cataldo, Esq. MCCORRISTON MILLER MUKAI MACKINNON LLP Five Waterfront Plaza, 4th Floor 500 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Kawakami's lawsuit alleges that he was improperly billed for service charges of 19 percent when he held his wedding reception at the Kahala Hotel in July 2007. They included a service charge of $3,106.46 for food and $1,704.49 for beverages, the suit said. Not all of the gratuities went to hotel staffers, and Kahala officials did not disclose that the hotel service workers would not receive the entire amount of the tip as required by law, the lawsuit said. KRISPY KREME: Court-Ordered Mediation Scheduled for January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A court-ordered mediation has been scheduled for January 2010 in a wage and hour suit against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc., according to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2009. The company is a defendant in a wage/hour suit pending in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California, in which the plaintiffs seek class action status and unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of approximately 35 persons. Discovery in the case is substantially complete, and court- ordered mediation currently is scheduled for January 2010. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. -- http://www.KrispyKreme.com/-- is a retailer and wholesaler of doughnuts. The company's principal business, which began in 1937, is owning and franchising Krispy Kreme doughnut stores where over 20 varieties of doughnuts are made, sold and distributed and where a broad array of coffees and other beverages are offered. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Three Right-of-Way Suits Remain Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Three purported class actions against Level 3 Communications, Inc., over railroad right-of-ways remain stayed, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to three purported class action lawsuits involving the companies' right to install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In July 2001, the company was named as a defendant in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. In November of 2005, the court granted class certification only for the state of Idaho. In September 2001, a company subsidiary was named as a defendant in Nelson, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, et. al. a purported class action covering the state of California, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District California. In April 2002, the Company and two of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in Bauer, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, et al., a purported class action covering 22 states, filed in state court in Madison County, Illinois. In general, the companies obtained the rights to construct their networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed their networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands over which the companies' fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities, and others who granted the companies the right to construct and maintain their networks did not have the legal authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive damages. The companies have also received, and may in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different legal theories. All of the purported class actions are currently stayed. Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the communications business. Level 3 is a facilities-based provider of a range of integrated communications services. LEVEL 3 COMMS: "Kingsborough" Settlement's Final Approval Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the motion for final approval of the settlement in the matter Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P., according to Level 3 Communications, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Case Background In April 2007, Waltham, Massachusetts attorney Catherine Colinvaux, Esq., on behalf of North Chelmsford couple Richard and Corey Kingsborough, filed the class-action suit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against several telecommunications companies (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2008). The named defendants in the suit are: -- Sprint Nextel Corp.; -- Sprint Communications Co., L.P.; -- Qwest Communications Corp.; -- Level 3 Communications, Inc.; -- Level 3 Telecom Holdings, Inc.; -- WilTel Communications, Inc.; -- WilTel Communications, LLC; and -- Williams Communications, LLC (f/k/a Vyvx, Inc.). The lawsuit claims that the defendants illegally ran fiber-optic cables under railroad rights-of-way without getting approval from neighboring landowners. Beginning in the early 1980s, the companies or their predecessors buried fiber-optic cable and installed related telecommunications equipment within railroad Rights of Way across the United States. A railroad Right of Way is a strip of land on which a railroad company builds and operates a railroad. Sprint, Qwest, WilTel and Level 3 entered into agreements with the railroads who own or occupy the Rights of Way, and under those agreements paid the railroads for the rights to install the telecommunications equipment within the Rights of Way at issue in the case. The plaintiffs allege the defendants illegally ran the cables to install a nationwide fiber-optic network in a way to achieve both lower costs and extra speed in installing their systems. Under the law, the railroads were granted easements, sometimes forced by the eminent-domain laws, across private property to install train tracks. But the lawsuit states the companies named in this lawsuit had no legal right to allow the rights of way for commercial telecommunications purposes with consent from and compensation to the owners of the land adjacent to the rights of way. As a result of this unlawful use of the land, the companies in the lawsuit have earned millions of dollars from rents, profits and other benefits, according to the lawsuit. Sprint, Qwest, WilTel and Level 3 contend that the permissions granted by the railroads were sufficient, even where the railroad did not own all property rights in the Rights of Way, and deny any wrongdoing. The class consists of all current or previous owners of land next to or under a railroad Right of Way at any time since the cables were installed. Subsequently, a proposed settlement has been reached between certain defendant telecommunications companies and a proposed class of current and prior owners of land next to or under certain railroad Rights of Way. The deal resolves litigation over whether these defendants had the right to install telecommunications facilities within railroad Rights of Way without the consent of members of the proposed settlement class. The Proposed Settlement will provide cash payments to qualifying class members based on various factors that include: -- the length of the Right of Way where the cable is installed, -- the state where the property is located, and -- how the railroad got its property rights. The Proposed Settlement will also provide Sprint, Qwest, WilTel and Level 3 with permanent Telecommunications Easements, which give them the right to use the railroad Rights of Way for their telecommunications equipment. The Proposed Settlement includes fiber-optic cable in the District of Columbia and forty-six of the lower forty-eight states. This settlement does not include fiber-optic cable in Louisiana or Tennessee. The Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, however, on Sept. 10, 2009 the court denied a motion for final approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case. Various motions seeking clarification and other relief have been filed with the court and are pending. The companies and the plaintiffs are engaged in continuing discussions. Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the communications business. Level 3 is a facilities-based provider of a range of integrated communications services. LEVEL 3 COMMS: Wants Consolidated Suit in Colorado Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ The motion of Level 3 Communications, Inc., to dismiss a Consolidated Class Action Complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In Feb. 2009, the company, certain of its current officers and a former officer were named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, which have been consolidated as In re Level 3 Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation (Civil Case No. 09-cv- 00200-PAB-CBS). The Plaintiffs in each complaint allege, in general, that throughout the purported class period specified in the complaint that the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's integration activities, business and operations. The complaints seek damages based on purported violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 4, 2009, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the case, and on June 29, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On July 29, 2009, the company and the other defendants named in the Complaint filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice which is pending before the court. Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the communications business. Level 3 is a facilities-based provider of a range of integrated communications services. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Three ERISA Suits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ Level 3 Communications, Inc.'s motion to consolidate three purported class action lawsuits remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In March 2009, late April 2009 and early May 2009, the company, the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k) Plan Committee and certain current and former officers and directors of Level 3 Communications, Inc. were named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits styled: -- Walter v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., -- Dagres v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al. and -- Fragale v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al. The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary and other duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act with respect to investments in the company's common stock held in individual participant accounts in the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k) Plan. The complaints claim that those investments were imprudent for reasons that are similar to those alleged in the securities and derivative actions described above. Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the communications business. Level 3 is a facilities-based provider of a range of integrated communications services. MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Continues ------------------------------------------------------ Macy's, Inc. continues to face a purported class-action suit filed by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in the company's Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan. On Oct. 3, 2007, Mr. Shanehchian filed a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan and The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan between Feb. 27, 2005 and the present. The complaint charges the Company, as well as certain current and former members of its board of directors and certain current and former members of management, with breach of fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects in relation to the integration of the acquired May operations, resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the Company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005 and May 15, 2007. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and costs. No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retail stores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's, women's and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home furnishings and other consumer goods. As of Feb. 2, 2008, the Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and Bloomingdale's. The Company, through its divisions, conducts electronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog businesses under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com and Bloomingdale's By Mail. In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an online bridal registry to customers. MDL 1285: 21 States Settle Vitamin Antitrust Suit for $25 Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Twenty-one states have agreed to settle litigation involving vitamin price fixing conspiracy allegations under federal and state antitrust laws for $25.03 million. The settlement is on behalf of consumers and businesses that purchased certain vitamins between 1988 and 2000 and reside in the settling states. This settlement follows an earlier $225 million settlement reached in 2000 involving the same vitamins but different vitamin manufacturers. The vitamins affected by this alleged price fixing conspiracy are: vitamin A, astaxanthin, vitamin B1 (thiamin), vitamin B2 (riboflavin), vitamin B3 (niacin), vitamin B4 (choline chloride), vitamin B5 (calpan), vitamin B6, vitamin B9 (folic acid), vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamine pharma), beta-carotene, vitamin C, canthaxanthin, vitamin E, and vitamin H (biotin), as well as all blends and forms of these vitamins. Also included is Premix, a product that contains one or more these vitamins in combination with other substances. The companies that sold these vitamins and subject to the $25.03 million settlement are: Akzo Nobel Inc.; Bioproducts Incorporated, Mitsui & Co., Ltd. and Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc.; Chinook Global Limited and Chinook Group, Inc.; Evonik Degussa GmbH, successor to Degussa AG, and Evonik Degussa Corporation; Lonza AG; Merck KGaA, E. Merck and EM Industries, Inc.; Nepera, Inc.; Sumitomo Chemical America, Inc. and Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation and Tanabe U.S.A., Inc.; UCB Pharma, Inc.; and, Vertellus Specialties Inc. and Vertellus Chemicals SA. The states, districts, and commonwealths participating in this settlement are: Arizona, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Attorneys General in these states secured this settlement in conjunction with a class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That lawsuit is Philip Richardson et al. v. Akzo Nobel Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-02112 (D.C.) (Hogan, J.), which is part of In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1285; Master Docket No. 99-mc-00197 (D.C.) (Hogan, J.). A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement has been filed, and court approval of the settlement is pending. Once the settlement is approved, businesses in the settling states that indirectly purchased any of the above vitamins between 1988 and 2000 may make a claim to obtain money from the portion of the settlement allocated to businesses. Given the extraordinary size of affected consumers, each Attorney General will distribute the settlement funds allocated to consumers in their state to government or not-for-profit organizations as approved by the Court. MICROSOFT CORP: Another Sidekick Suit filed in Cook County ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Microsoft and Danger Inc. lost enormous amounts of data stored in Sidekicks by failing to back it up before upgrading the network, a class action claims in Cook County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Taraszka, et al. v. Microsoft Corp. and Danger, Inc., Case No. _________ (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/09/Microsoft.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Iilan Chorowski, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROU LLC 222 W. Onario, Suite 310 Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: 312-787-2717 NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retired Players Settlement Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable William Alsup put his final stamp of approval on a settlement agreement and plan of distribution in Adderley v. National Football League Players Association, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00943 (N.D. Calif.), on behalf of all retired NFL players who executed a group licensing authorization form (GLA) with the NFLPA that was in effect at any time between February 14, 2003 and February 14, 2007 and which contains the following language: "[T]he moneys generated by such licensing of retired player group rights will be divided between the player and an escrow account for all eligible NFLPA members who have signed a group licensing authorization form." Additional information about this matter is available at: http://www.retiredplayerclassaction.com/ which is maintained by The Garden City Group, Inc., in its role as the Noticing and Claims Agent. NEUROGEN CORP: Faces Lawsuit Over Merger Plan with Ligand Pharma ---------------------------------------------------------------- Neurogen Corp. faces a putative class action complaint over its agreement and plan of merger with Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc., according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Aug. 23, 2009, Neurogen entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Ligand and a special purpose subsidiary of Ligand, Merger Sub. On Aug. 31, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Connecticut Superior Court for the New Haven Judicial District by Gabriel Guzman, one of Neurogen's stockholders, against Neurogen, the members of its board of directors, Ligand and Merger Sub. The complaint generally alleges that Neurogen's board of directors' decision to enter into the proposed transaction with Ligand on the terms contained in the merger agreement constitutes a breach of their fiduciary duties and gives rise to other unspecified state law claims. The complaint also alleges that Ligand and Merger Sub aided and abetted Neurogen's board of directors' breach of their fiduciary duties. In addition, the complaint alleges that the named plaintiff will seek "equitable relief", including among other things, an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the proposed transaction. On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding certain claims that the directors had not properly disclosed all relevant information relating to the proposed merger. On Oct. 22, 2009, the director defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on the basis that the individual defendants had not been properly served. In addition, the company and the director defendants filed a motion to strike the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On that same date, Ligand filed a motion to strike the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Neurogen Corp. -- http://www.neurogen.com/-- is a development company focusing on new small molecule drugs to improve the lives of patients suffering from psychiatric and neurological disorders, including Restless legs syndrome (RLS), and Parkinson's disease. PALM INC: Sued, with Sprint Nextel, for "Catastrophic Data Loss" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that Palm and Sprint Nextel caused "catastrophic data losses" on Palm Pre and Palm Pixi smart phones because of a defective Web-based backup system, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. The class says Palm's sole backup system relies on "cloud-computing," in which users store information on the "technology providers' massive servers via the Internet." The class claims Palm touted cloud computing to sell its products, claiming it would allow users to send their data to a new phone or device should theirs be lost, destroyed or defective. The service is designed to update every 24 hours. When a new backup is complete all previously stored information is overwritten and becomes irretrievable, and neither Palm nor Sprint operates a secondary backup system, according to the complaint. But the class claims that this webOS system frequently loses data when customers switch from one device to another. They add that, unlike iPhones and BlackBerries, Palm phones do not sync with users' personal computer additional software and hardware. The class claims Palm and Sprint negligently encouraged their customers to rely on the webOS service, and that the defendants failed to invest enough resources in developing the technology. Hundreds of thousands of Palm Pre phones have been sold since it was released in June, according to the complaint, which adds that Sprint is "the exclusive wireless carrier for webOS devices in the United States". The class seeks damages for breach of contract, consumer law violations, unfair business practices and unfair competition. A copy of the Complaint in Standiford v. Palm, Inc., and Sprint Nextel Corp., Case No. 09-cv-05719 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/09/Palm.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David Parisi, Esq. Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq., PARISI & HAVENS, LLP 15233 Valleyheart Drive Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: 818-990-1299 - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. KAMBEREDELSON, LLC 350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-589-6370 RAIT FINANCIAL: E.D. Pa. Approves Investor Litigation Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- On December 10, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final court approval of the settlement of the consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re RAIT Financial Trust Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-03148. Under the terms of the settlement, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and RAIT and all the other defendants received a full release of all claims asserted against them in the lawsuit in exchange for a cash payment of $32 million. The settlement payment is within the limits of RAIT's directors and officers liability insurance, and the settlement has been funded by RAIT's insurers. In connection with the settlement, RAIT and the other defendants have at all times denied and continue to deny wrongdoing of any kind. About RAIT Financial Trust RAIT Financial Trust -- http://www.raitft.com/-- manages a portfolio of real estate related assets, provides a comprehensive set of debt financing options to the real estate industry and invests in real estate related assets. RAIT's management uses their experience, knowledge and relationship network to seek to generate and manage real estate related investment opportunities for RAIT and for outside investors. SELECTREMEDY: Class Action Says Warehouse Workers Shortchanged -------------------------------------------------------------- David Moberg at In These Times reports that from the first weeks after he began working last year as a temporary loader at Wal- Mart's big distribution center in suburban Chicago, Miguel Deniz suspected that his immediate employer -- a day labor agency known as SelectRemedy -- was shortchanging him. But the company obscured its wage theft by paying him by direct deposit or with a cash card, not a paycheck listing his hours. So Mr. Deniz started keeping records. He says they confirmed that the company was paying him for fewer hours than he worked. It also was dividing up his work into short blocks of hours to avoid both the appearance of his working more than 40 hours a week and the necessity of paying overtime. "Always, I never got my complete hours," the 62-year old veteran day laborer says. "To avoid paying us 40 hours, they gave us six hours here, six hours there. Also, if in four days I work 30 hours, they only pay 17 or 18." On the stinging cold morning of Dec. 10, Mr. Moberg relates, Mr. Deniz joined other temporary workers outside Chicago's only Wal- Mart store to announce a class-action lawsuit against SelectRemedy for repeated failures to pay overtime, the minimum wage or all the money due to workers, among other charges. Although SelectRemedy (also known as Real Time Staffing Services, Inc.) is primarily responsible for the alleged wage theft and for making workers whole, Wal-Mart and other big warehouse owners who contract with temp agencies are ultimately also responsible -- legally and practically, according to the attorney filing the class action: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKING HANDS LEGAL CLINIC 77 West Washington St., Ste. 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 795-9115 These big companies play the smaller temp agencies against each other to get the lowest price. As a result, for the temp agencies, Mr. Williams says, "the only way to make a profit is to cheat the workers." SILICONE IMPLANTS: O'Quinn Estate Agrees to Pay $46.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- The Houston Chronicle reports that plaintiffs' lawyer John M. O'Quinn's estate agreed on last week to pay $46.5 million to a group of former breast implant clients who filed a class action alleging his firm overcharged them for expenses. In 2007, Brenda Sapino Jeffreys at the Texas Lawyer reports, a three-member arbitration panel ordered Mr. O'Quinn's firm to pay a total of $41.5 million in damages to the class in Martha Wood, et al. v. John M. O'Quinn, PC, et al., after finding his firm breached a fiduciary duty. Mr. O'Quinn's firm had appealed the judgment confirming the arbitration award, but that appeal will end if the class members accept the $46.5 million settlement. Mr. O'Quinn, 68, died in a high-speed car crash on Oct. 29, 2009. SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued, with Palm, for "Catastrophic Data Loss" ------------------------------------------------------------ Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that Palm and Sprint Nextel caused "catastrophic data losses" on Palm Pre and Palm Pixi smart phones because of a defective Web-based backup system, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. The class says Palm's sole backup system relies on "cloud-computing," in which users store information on the "technology providers' massive servers via the Internet." The class claims Palm touted cloud computing to sell its products, claiming it would allow users to send their data to a new phone or device should theirs be lost, destroyed or defective. The service is designed to update every 24 hours. When a new backup is complete all previously stored information is overwritten and becomes irretrievable, and neither Palm nor Sprint operates a secondary backup system, according to the complaint. But the class claims that this webOS system frequently loses data when customers switch from one device to another. They add that, unlike iPhones and BlackBerries, Palm phones do not sync with users' personal computer additional software and hardware. The class claims Palm and Sprint negligently encouraged their customers to rely on the webOS service, and that the defendants failed to invest enough resources in developing the technology. Hundreds of thousands of Palm Pre phones have been sold since it was released in June, according to the complaint, which adds that Sprint is "the exclusive wireless carrier for webOS devices in the United States". The class seeks damages for breach of contract, consumer law violations, unfair business practices and unfair competition. A copy of the Complaint in Standiford v. Palm, Inc., and Sprint Nextel Corp., Case No. 09-cv-05719 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/09/Palm.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David Parisi, Esq. Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq., PARISI & HAVENS, LLP 15233 Valleyheart Drive Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: 818-990-1299 - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. KAMBEREDELSON, LLC 350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-589-6370 SWITCH & DATA: M.D. Fla. Shareholder Complaint Attacks CEO ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Broadbased Equities claims Switch & Data Facilities Co. CEO Keith Olsen is hoarding information and advancing his personal interests at shareholders' expense, in Tampa Federal Court. VCG HOLDING: Faces "Sutton" Complaint over Lowrie's Buy Proposal ---------------------------------------------------------------- VCG Holding Corp. faces a complaint over an agreement entered into in connection with Troy Lowrie's proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the company, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On Dec. 3, 2009, the company was served with a complaint filed by David J. Sutton and Sandra Sutton in the District Court in Jefferson County, Colorado. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action lawsuit against the company and each of the individual members of the Board on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Mr. Lowrie has conflicts of interest with respect to the Proposal and that the individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties under Colorado law in connection with the Proposal. The Complaint seeks, among other things: -- certification of the Plaintiffs as class representatives, -- an injunction directing the Board to comply with their fiduciary duties and enjoining the Board from consummating the Proposal, -- imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the Plaintiffs and the class upon any benefits improperly received by the defendants, -- an award of the costs and disbursements of maintaining the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and -- such other relief the court deems just and proper. Lowrie Proposal On Dec. 3, 2009, the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of VCG Holding entered into a standstill and confidentiality agreement with the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Lowrie, Lowrie Management, LLLP and Family Dog, LLC. The Agreement was entered into in connection with Lowrie's proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the company. Under the Agreement, Lowrie agreed that it will not, among other things: (a) acquire additional securities of the company, (b) enter into any merger or business combination involving the company to purchase a material portion of the assets of the company or make or participate in any proxy solicitation with respect to the foregoing, (c) enter into any contract or understanding with any person or group with respect to the company's securities, (d) disclose any intention, plan or arrangement inconsistent with the foregoing, or (e) advise, assist or encourage any other persons in connection with any of the foregoing. The Agreement will remain in place until the earliest to occur of: (i) 12 months from the date of the Agreement, (ii) the date of execution of any definitive agreement with respect to the Proposal or (iii) 180 days after written notice by Lowrie of the cessation of negotiations with respect to the Proposal. In addition, for 12 months from the date of the Agreement, Lowrie agreed to protect the Company's confidential information and not use such confidential information for purposes other than evaluating and negotiating the Proposal. On Dec. 4, 2009, Lowrie notified the Special Committee that in order to allow sufficient time to consider and review the Proposal, the expiration of the Proposal has been further extended to 5:00 p.m. MST on Dec. 14, 2009. VCG Holding Corp. -- http://www.vcgh.com/-- is in the business of acquiring, owning and operating nightclubs, which provide live adult entertainment, restaurant and beverage services. WESTERN CULINARY: Oregon Court Certifies Class of Students ---------------------------------------------------------- LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that a lawsuit against Western Culinary Institute in Portland, Oregon alleges that the institute overstated employment rates and the value of its culinary education. The suit has received class action status and could pave the way for hundreds of additional plaintiffs affected by the issue. Western Culinary Institute is owned by Career Education Corp., an operator of 75 private schools around the country that prepare students to work in the culinary, medical and design fields, among others. The December 7 issue of the Oregonian reports that the majority of students fund their tuition with the help of student loans and grants, according to the latest quarterly report of the institution. Many of those students cannot repay those loans while struggling in low-paying jobs. The problem -- and the basis of the lawsuit filed in March 2008 in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland -- is that prospective students are not told prior to enrollment that their diploma would likely earn them only low-wage preparatory and line-cook jobs. The original plaintiff in the 2008 lawsuit, Jennifer Adams, alleges that 70 percent of Western's grads in 2007-2008 earn less than $22,500 per year, even though tuition can run as high as $41,000 for a full 60-week culinary and hospitality program. Ms. Adams maintains that a salary of $22,500 per year could be secured without Western training and thus without the grants and loans needed to pay for their education. The lawsuit alleges that the school engages in fraud and unfair business practices. Last week Judge Richard Baldwin of Multnomah County ruled that the lawsuit could be certified as a class action, potentially exposing the trade school to additional claims by hundreds of former students. The Oregonian reports that CEC, Western's parent, is facing lawsuits alleging violations of consumer-protection laws by its California School of Culinary Arts Inc. and Sanford-Brown College Inc. in Illinois. A Georgia appeals court recently denied class- action certification in a lawsuit involving CEC's American InterContinental University Inc. CEC settled a lawsuit brought by six ex-students of Sanford-Brown in Missouri earlier this year. Attorneys representing Western point out that the judge refused to allow other claims inferring that the school breached apparent contractual obligations to provide placement services as promised. Such a decision would have allowed several thousand additional claimants to join the action. Coverage of the filing of Ms. Adams' lawsuit appeared in the Class Action Reporter on March 11, 2008. YTB INTERNATIONAL: No Ruling Yet on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois has yet to rule on the plaintiffs' motions for leave with the Court to amend their complaints against YTB International, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 6, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Aug. 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class- action was filed against the company, three company subsidiaries, and certain executive officers, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. On Aug. 14, 2008, a second, substantively similar, complaint was filed against the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The two cases have now been consolidated and are proceeding together before the same judge. The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint, seeking damages of over $100.0 million. On Feb. 9, 2009, the company filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the company's motions and dismissed the class action complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that conformed with the Court's ruling. On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that purported to conform to the Court's ruling. The amended complaint asserts claims similar to those contained in the dismissed complaint, as well as claims against the company for alleged violations of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, and the Georgia Sale of Business Opportunities Act. On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its own motion, struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety based on the Court's belief that the amended complaint does not pass muster under the applicable federal pleading standards. As of July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for leave with the Court to amend their complaints. To date, the Court has not ruled on these motions. YTB International, Inc. -- http://www.ytb.com/-- is engaged in the travel services business. It offers an interactive, real- time travel booking engine with access to deals with travel industry suppliers to licensees and to small office and home office entrepreneurs and independent travel agencies. YTB conducts its business operations primarily through three wholly owned subsidiaries: YTB Travel Network, Inc., together with its subsidiary YTB Travel Network of Illinois Inc., which licenses and services its referring travel agents (RTAs); YourTravelBiz.com, Inc., which uses a referral marketing system to offer and sell Internet business centers (IBCs), and REZconnect Technologies, Inc., which operates a franchise chain of travel agencies and also acts as a host agency for traditional brick and mortar travel companies. ZUMIEZ INC: Alameda Country Court Denies Approval of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Alameda County Superior Court denied approval of the agreement entered into by Zumiez Inc., and a former employee to settle a class action over unpaid overtime wages, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. On March 5, 2008, a former employee commenced an action against the company in California state court alleging that the company failed to: -- pay all overtime wages owing to him and other employees in California, -- provide meal breaks as required by California law, -- provide employees with proper itemized wage statements (pay stubs) as required by California law, and -- pay terminated employees waiting time penalties under California Labor Code section 203. The suit Evan Johnson v. Zumiez, Inc., et al., Case No. RG08374968. On July 16, 2009, the company announced that it had reached an agreement to settle. The claims made settlement agreement was submitted to the court for preliminary approval, but the court denied approval without prejudice and encouraged the parties to restructure and resubmit the agreement to the court for approval. The company is now discussing modifications to the settlement agreement with plaintiff's counsel. Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name. As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states. ZUMIEZ INC: "Berg" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action, Chandra Berg v. Zumiez Inc., Case No. BC408410 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), according to the company's Dec. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. The action alleges causes of action for: -- failure to pay overtime wages to present and former store managers in California, -- failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks to store managers, -- failure to reimburse retail employees for clothing required by the company's dress code, -- failure to reimburse retail employees for business expenses, -- failure to provide store managers with accurate itemized wage statements, -- failure to pay terminated store managers all wages due at the time of termination, -- unfair business practices and -- declaratory relief. The company has filed an answer to the Complaint and discovery is being conducted. No motion requesting certification of the case as a class action has been filed. Zumiez Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear, equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name. As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 343 stores primarily located in shopping malls, giving it a presence in 31 states. ********* 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 * * *