/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100106.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, January 6, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 3
Headlines
ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Continues to Defend "Augustus" Litigation
ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles "Chen" Suit over Unpaid Overtime
ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal of Plaintiffs in "Villacres" Suit Pending
ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Khandera" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends "Bucio" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend "Batiz" Suit in California
ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends Consolidated "Diaz" Suit in Los Angeles
ALLIANCE HEALTHCARD: Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending
ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit Remains Pending in Florida
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in California
EMCORE CORP: "Prissert" Shareholder Suit Pending in New Mexico
EMCORE CORP: Faces "Mueller" Stockholder Lawsuit in New Mexico
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Faces Stockholder Securities Suit in Texas
GEO GROUP: Discovery in "Allison and Hocevar" Suit Ongoing
GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend "Mayes" Suit over FLSA Violations
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Enters Agreement to Settle Cardholder Suit
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Resolves New Jersey Securities Fraud Suit
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Unit's Motion for Reconsideration Pending
INTEGRATED SILICON: Inks Agreement to Settle Three SRAM Suits
LIVEDEAL INC: Continues to Defend GES Suit in Washington
NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Faces Suit over Securities Act Violations
NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in Texas
NOVELL INC: Settlement Gets Final Approval from New York Court
ORACLE CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Dismissal of Suit Pending
REX ENERGY: Units Settle Illinois Suit for $1.9 Million
STATION CASINOS: Former Employees' Suit Remains Stayed in Nevada
TORO CO: Settlement Discussion on Consumer Fraud Suit Ongoing
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Hearing on Plaintiff's Appeal Set for Jan. 11
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in California
*********
ABM INDUSTRIES: Unit Continues to Defend "Augustus" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of ABM Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself
in a class action suit, Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American
Commercial Security Services, according to its Dec. 22, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
The consolidated cases was filed on July 12, 2005, with in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.
The named plaintiffs in the suit are current or former employees
of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they
were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all
overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.
They generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.
On Jan. 8, 2009, a judge of the L.A. Superior Court certified the
Augustus case as a class action.
ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada. The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles "Chen" Suit over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., has settled the case, Chen v. Ampco System
Parking and ABM Industries, according to the company's Dec. 22,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
The suit was filed on March 6, 2008, with the U.S. District Court
of for the Southern District of California.
The named plaintiffs in the suit are current or former employees
of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they
were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all
overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law. Plaintiffs
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or
both.
The case was settled on Nov. 23, 2009.
ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada. The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal of Plaintiffs in "Villacres" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a case against a
subsidiary of ABM Industries, Inc., remains pending, according to
the company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct.
31, 2009.
The suit is Villacres v. ABM Security filed on Aug. 15, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court of California, Central District.
The named plaintiffs in the suit are current or former employees
of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they
were required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all
overtime, were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law. Plaintiffs
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or
both.
On Jan. 15, 2009, a federal court judge denied with prejudice
class certification status in the case. That case as well as the
companion state court case filed April 3, 2008, in L.A. Superior
Court, were both subsequently dismissed with prejudice on summary
judgment.
Both dismissals have been appealed by the plaintiff.
ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada. The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Khandera" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., defends a purported class action suit,
Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co.-West and
ABM Industries.
The suit, filed on March 24, 2008, in U.S District Court of
Washington, Western District, relates to alleged violations of
federal or state wage-and-hour laws.
The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime,
were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to state law.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.
No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 22, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada. The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends "Bucio" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., defends a purported class action suit,
Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services.
The consolidated suit was filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Francisco.
The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime,
were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.
No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 22, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada. The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend "Batiz" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., defends a purported class action,
Batiz/Heine v. American Commercial Security Services.
The consolidated suit was filed on June 7, 2006, in the U.S.
District Court of California, Central District.
The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime,
were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.
No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 22, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada. The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Defends Consolidated "Diaz" Suit in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc., defends the consolidated cases of
Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking.
The case was filed on Dec. 5, 2006, in the L.A. Superior Court.
The named plaintiffs are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were
required to work "off the clock," were not paid for all overtime,
were not provided work breaks or other benefits, and
received pay stubs not conforming to California law.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.
No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 22, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com-- is a facility
services contractor in the U.S. ABM and its subsidiaries
provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting
services for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail
facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the U.S. and in
British Columbia, Canada. The Company operates through five
segments: Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering and
Lighting.
ALLIANCE HEALTHCARD: Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying
Amended Motion for Class Certification in a class-action suit
against Alliance Healthcard, Inc.'s subsidiary, The Capella
Group, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's Dec. 28,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.
The lawsuit is styled William Andrew Rivell, M.D. and Alan B.
Whitehouse, M.D., individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. Private Health Care Systems and The
Capella Group, Inc.; Civil Action File No: CV106-176.
The suit was filed and remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division.
The plaintiffs case allege that the contracts entered into by
medical providers with the company's subsidiary, Capella Group,
through Capella's relationship with the Private Health Care
Systems network of providers did not allow for the use of the
providers' names to market a discount medical plan whereby
payment for services is made at the point of service by the
consumer, and not by a third party payor such as an insurance
company.
The Plaintiffs are seeking certification of this case as a class
action on behalf of all similarly-situated physicians nationwide.
The case was originally instituted on Nov. 17, 2006, but was
thereafter dismissed by the District Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated such
dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court on March
24, 2008.
On Oct. 30, 2008, The Harford Accident and Indemnity Co. assumed
payment of defense costs pursuant to a reservation of rights
letter issued on that date. The Hartford has since filed a
declaratory judgment action against the Capella Group, Inc.
asking the court to determine the respective rights of the
parties.
In August 2009, the District Court denied Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion for Class Certification. In September 2009, Plaintiffs
filed their Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Amended
Motion for Class Certification, asking the District Court to
certify a smaller class.
Alliance Healthcard, Inc. -- http://www.alliancehealthcard.com/-
- is a provider of discount medical plans with a focus on
creating, marketing, and distributing membership savings
programs. It offers savings in approximately 16 areas of health
care, including physician visits, hospital stays, chiropractics,
vision, dental, pharmacy, hearing, and patient advocacy, among
others. In April 2009, Alliance HealthCard, Inc. completed the
acquisition of Access Plans USA, Inc.
ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit Remains Pending in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit styled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB
Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709, remains pending in the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, according to ALP Liquidating Trust's Dec. 22,
2009, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.
Effective Sept. 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") completed its liquidation by contributing all of
its remaining assets to ALP, subject to all of the Partnership's
obligations and liabilities. Arvida Company, an affiliate of the
general partner of the Partnership, acts as Administrator
(the "Administrator") of ALP.
The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.
In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003,
plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out
of construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes. On
May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.
Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were not
adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity
with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with
Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer
from improper shutter storm protection systems. Plaintiffs have
filed a motion to expand the class to include other homes in
Weston.
The motion to expand the class has not yet been heard. The
Arvida defendants intend to oppose the motion.
The matter hearing on a motion to certify the class was scheduled
on Dec. 21-22, 2009.
The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint.
This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance
carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company, for defense and
indemnity. Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a
purported reservation of rights. The Partnership has also
engaged other counsel in connection with this lawsuit.
ALP Liquidating Trust engages in liquidating the assets of
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. Arvida/JMB Partners transferred all of
its remaining assets to the trust at the time of its liquidation
in 2005. Previously, Arvida/JMB Partners was engaged in the
development of resort and primary home communities for the
middle and upper income segments in the State of Florida, as well
as in Atlanta, Georgia, and Highlands, North Carolina. ALP
Liquidating Trust was founded in 1987 and is based in Chicago,
Illinois.
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Continues to Defend Amended Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARCA biopharma, Inc., formerly known as Nuvelo, Inc., continues
to defend an amended consolidated complaint related to the
clinical trial results of alfimeprase, according to the company's
Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Setp. 30, 2009.
On Feb. 9, 2007, Nuvelo and certain of its former and current
officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported
securities class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which
Nuvelo announced on Dec. 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf of
purchasers of Nuvelo's common stock during the period between
Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006.
Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo misled investors
regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood
of success.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of
New York on Feb. 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007. On
April 10, 2007, three separate motions to consolidate the cases,
appoint lead plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff's counsel were
filed.
On April 18, 2007, Nuvelo filed a motion to transfer the four
cases to the Northern District of California. The Court
granted Nuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern
District of California in July 2007.
Plaintiffs have filed motions for consolidation, lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel in the Northern District of
California. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in the
Northern District of California on Nov. 9, 2007.
Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs consolidated
complaint on Dec. 21, 2007. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
Nuvelo's motion to dismiss on Feb. 4, 2008. On June 12, 2008,
the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
On Dec. 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's
complaint, and granting leave to amend.
On Jan. 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging
similar claims.
On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On July 15, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss.
On July 15, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss.
On Aug. 17, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion.
ARCA filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint on Oct. 1, 2009.
Based on plaintiff's amended complaint, ARCA believes that any
attorneys' fees, loss or settlement payment with respect to this
suit will be paid by its insurance provider.
ARCA biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.nuvelo.com/-- formerly known
as Nuvelo, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for acute
cardiovascular disease, cancer and other debilitating medical
conditions.
EMCORE CORP: "Prissert" Shareholder Suit Pending in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported shareholder class action, Maurice Prissert and
Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard, Hong Q. Hou,
Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas Werthan, Case
No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.) is pending.
On Dec. 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude Prissert
filed a purported shareholder class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a class
of its shareholders against the company and certain of its
present and former directors and officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico.
The Complaint alleges that the company and the Individual
Defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities
laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the company's disclosure
regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy and the associated
backlog of GGE orders with the company's photovoltaic
business segment.
The Complaint in the Action seeks, among other things, an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other costs and
expenses associated with the maintenance of the Action.
Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the matter with Mueller v.
EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.) The
Court has not yet consolidated the two class actions or selected
the lead plaintiff for these class actions
No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 29, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.
EMCORE Corporation -- http://www.emcore.com/-- is a provider of
compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the
broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and terrestrial solar power
markets. The company has two reporting segments: Fiber Optics
and Photovoltaics. Fiber Optics segment offers optical
components, subsystems, and systems that enable the transmission
of video, voice, and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables
for high-speed data and telecommunications, cable television
(CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks. Photovoltaics
segment provides solar products for satellite and terrestrial
applications.
EMCORE CORP: Faces "Mueller" Stockholder Lawsuit in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported stockholder class action, Mueller v. EMCORE
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.), is pending.
On Feb. 12, 2009, the action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico against the company and certain of
its present and former directors and officers.
The suit is based on the substantially the same facts and
circumstances, containing substantially the same allegations and
seeking substantially the same relief as Maurice Prissert and
Claude Prissert's purported stockholder class action.
Plaintiffs in both class actions have moved to consolidate the
matters into a single action, and several alleged EMCORE
shareholders have moved to be appointed lead class plaintiff of
the to-be consolidated action.
The Court has not yet consolidated the two class actions or
selected the lead plaintiff for these class actions.
No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 29, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.
EMCORE Corporation -- http://www.emcore.com/-- is a provider of
compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the
broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and terrestrial solar power
markets. The company has two reporting segments: Fiber Optics
and Photovoltaics. Fiber Optics segment offers optical
components, subsystems, and systems that enable the transmission
of video, voice, and data over high-capacity fiber optic cables
for high-speed data and telecommunications, cable television
(CATV) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks. Photovoltaics
segment provides solar products for satellite and terrestrial
applications.
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Faces Stockholder Securities Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc., faces a stockholder class action suit
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
On Aug. 7, 2009, a class action suit was commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the company between May 8, 2007
and Jan. 23, 2008, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the time period indicated,
Flotek failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following adverse facts, among others:
(i) the company was experiencing weakness in its Rocky
Mountain sales region due to its decision to not cut
prices to the level of its competitors;
(ii) the company's operating profit margins were being
negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to
rent equipment instead of purchasing it;
(iii) sales in the company's chemicals division were declining
due to a decrease in fracing activity; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements concerning the company's guidance and
prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 16, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009
Flotek Industries, Inc. -- http://www.flotekind.com/home.php--
is supplying drilling and production related products and
services to the energy and mining industries. The company's core
focus is oilfield specialty chemicals and logistics, downhole
drilling tools and downhole production tools. Flotek offers its
products primarily through its sales organizations, as well as
through independent distributors and agents. The company's
reportable segments are Chemical and Logistics, Drilling Products
and Artificial Lift. All three segments market products
domestically and internationally. The company acquired the
assets of Teledrift Inc., which designs and manufactures wireless
survey and measurement while drilling tools, on Feb. 14, 2008.
GEO GROUP: Discovery in "Allison and Hocevar" Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in Allison and Hocevar v. The GEO Group, Inc., Civil
Action No. 08-cv-00467 (E.D. Pa.), has commenced, according to
the company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
On Jan. 30, 2008, a lawsuit seeking class action certification
was filed against the company by an inmate at one of its
facilities.
The case is now entitled Allison and Hocevar v. The GEO Group,
Inc. (Civil Action No. 08-467) and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The lawsuit alleges that the company has a companywide blanket
policy at its immigration/detention facilities and jails that
requires all new inmates and detainees to undergo a strip search
upon intake into each facility. The plaintiff alleges that this
practice, to the extent implemented, violates the civil rights of
the affected inmates and detainees.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for all purported class
members, a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring the
alleged policy from being implemented in the future.
The company believes it has several defenses to the allegations
underlying this litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously
defend its rights in this matter.
In September 2008, the company filed a motion for judgment on
pleadings which may be dispositive of this matter as a result of
a recent but significant development in the law regarding similar
strip search practices.
The District Court has, in the interim, stayed further discovery.
Discovery has recently commenced in connection with this matter.
The GEO Group, Inc. -- http://www.geogroup.com/-- is a provider
of government-outsourced services specializing in the management
of correctional, detention and mental health and residential
treatment facilities in the United States, Canada, Australia,
South Africa and the United Kingdom. It operates a range of
correctional and detention facilities, including maximum, medium
and minimum security prisons, immigration detention centers,
minimum security detention centers and mental health and
residential treatment facilities. The company conducts its
business through four business segments: United States
corrections segment; International services segment; GEO Care
segment, and Facility construction and design segment.
GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend "Mayes" Suit over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc., continues to defend a suit alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the
company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
On Oct. 23, 2008, a wage and hour claim seeking potential class
action certification was served against the company.
The case is styled Mayes v. The GEO Group Inc., Civil Action No.
08-0248, and it is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division.
The plaintiffs in this case have alleged that the company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay certain
employees for work performed before and after their scheduled
shifts. The company is in the preliminary stages of evaluating
this claim but has preliminarily denied the plaintiffs'
assertions.
The GEO Group, Inc. -- http://www.geogroup.com/-- is a provider
of government-outsourced services specializing in the management
of correctional, detention and mental health and residential
treatment facilities in the United States, Canada, Australia,
South Africa and the United Kingdom. It operates a range of
correctional and detention facilities, including maximum, medium
and minimum security prisons, immigration detention centers,
minimum security detention centers and mental health and
residential treatment facilities. The company conducts its
business through four business segments: United States
corrections segment; International services segment; GEO Care
segment, and Facility construction and design segment.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Enters Agreement to Settle Cardholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. entered into an agreement to
settle the consumer cardholder class actions consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, according
to the company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commissions.
The actions relate to claims arising from the criminal breach of
Heartland's payment system announced on Jan. 20, 2009.
Under the terms of the settlement, Heartland will pay a minimum
of $1,000,000 and up to a maximum of $2,400,000 to class members
who submit valid claims for losses as a result of the intrusion.
The settlement resolves all actions and proceedings that were
asserted or could have been asserted against Heartland in
relation to the intrusion by all persons in the United States who
had payment cards used in the United States between Dec. 6, 2007
and Dec. 31, 2008 and who allege or may allege they suffered
losses. Any person who validly requests exclusion from the
settlement class will be excluded from the settlement.
Heartland will also pay all costs associated with the
administration of the settlement, including up to $1.5 million
for the cost of notice to the settling class. In addition,
Heartland has agreed to pay up to $760,000 of the attorneys' fees
and costs of attorneys representing the class members. Lastly,
Heartland has agreed to submit the report of an independent
expert on Heartland's actions and plans to enhance the security
of its computer system since the announcement of the intrusion on
Jan. 20, 2009.
A claims administration process informing affected cardholders of
procedures to be followed for making claims or opting out of the
settlement will be implemented, including a dedicated website.
The settlement is subject to court approval and other terms.
Heartland may terminate the settlement agreement if the number of
persons who submit valid requests for exclusion from the
settlement class exceeds 2,500 or if the costs of notice to the
settling class exceed $1,500,000.
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. --
http://www.heartlandpaymentsystems.com/-- is the 5th largest
payments processor in the United States, delivers
credit/debit/prepaid card processing, payroll, check management
and payments solutions to more than 250,000 business locations
nationwide. Heartland is the founding supporter of The Merchant
Bill of Rights, a public advocacy initiative that educates
merchants about fair credit and debit card processing practices.
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Resolves New Jersey Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.; its chief financial officer J. Larry
Sorsby; and its chief executive officer and president, Ara
K. Hovnanian, have resolved a consolidated securities fraud class
action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, according to the company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
The company, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
President, Ara K. Hovnanian, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, J. Larry Sorsby and a former officer of a
company subsidiary were named as defendants in a purported class
action.
The original complaint, which only named Mr. Sorsby as a
defendant, was filed on Sept. 14, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned Herbert
Mankofsky v. J. Larry Sorsby.
On Jan. 31, 2008, the court appointed Herbert Mankofsky as Lead
Plaintiff.
On Feb. 19, 2008, the action was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
On March 10, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
captioned In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation, alleging, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and future prospects
in connection with the Company's acquisition of First Home
Builders of Florida.
The company and Messrs. Hovnanian and Sorsby filed a Motion to
Dismiss the amended complaint on July 14, 2008. On Sept. 11,
2008, Lead Plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss.
The company and Messrs. Hovnanian and Sorsby filed their reply
brief on Oct. 28, 2008.
In March 2009, by court-ordered stipulation, the defendants
withdrew their Motion to Dismiss, and a second amended complaint
was filed in June 2009.
The company's insurance carrier has agreed to provide coverage
for the case under the company's insurance policy, therefore, the
maximum exposure to the company is the deductible, which has
already been incurred and expensed. The matter has been
resolved, and the resolution has been approved by the court, with
no further payments from the company.
The suit is In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation (N.J.) (Wigenton, J.)
Representing the plaintiffs is:
William C. Cagney, Esq.
Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP
120 Albany Street Plaza
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Phone: (732) 846-7600
E-mail: wcagney@windelsmarx.com
Representing the defendants is:
Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq.
Lowenstein Sandler P.C.
65 Livingston Ave.
Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
Phone: (973) 597-2500
E-mail: deakeley@lowenstein.com
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Unit's Motion for Reconsideration Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., is awaiting a decision on the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by a subsidiary on a ruling by the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissing
portions of the second amended complaint, according to the
company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct.
31, 2009.
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint in a purported class action suit, Randolph
Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al., is pending.
A subsidiary of the company has been named as a defendant in the
purported class-action suit filed on May 30, 2007, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging
violations of the federal securities acts, among other
allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the
subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.
Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of certain home purchasers
in southwestern Florida and sought damages,
rescission of certain purchase agreements, restitution of out-
of-pocket expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint on Dec. 14, 2007.
Following oral argument on the motion in September 2008, the
court dismissed the amended complaint with leave for plaintiffs
to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 2008.
The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss this second
amended complaint.
The Court dismissed portions of the second amended complaint.
The company's subsidiary has filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of a position of the Court's decision and is awaiting a decision.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of certain home purchasers
in southwestern Florida and seek damages, rescission of certain
purchase agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket expenses, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.khov.com/-- designs,
constructs, markets and sells single-family detached homes,
attached townhomes and condominiums, mid-rise and high-rise
condominiums, urban infill and active adult homes in planned
residential developments.
INTEGRATED SILICON: Inks Agreement to Settle Three SRAM Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., has entered into an agreement
to settle three lawsuits brought by direct purchasers in the U.S.
relating to the sale and pricing of static random access memory
products, according to the company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.
Thirty-three purported class action lawsuits were filed by U.S.
Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against
the company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. federal
courts alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of
state unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment relating to
the sale and pricing of SRAM products.
The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal
court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.
The U.S. lawsuits seek treble damages for the alleged damages
sustained by purported class members, in addition to restitution,
costs and attorneys' fees, as well as an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.
As of Aug. 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from
all lawsuits brought by the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs
pursuant to a Tolling Agreement between the company and the U.S.
Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs.
The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed not to name the
company as a defendant unless the Tolling Agreement is terminated
according to terms specified in that agreement.
On Jan. 9, 2008, the company was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice from one of the lawsuits brought by the U.S. Direct-
Purchaser Plaintiffs.
The company remains a defendant in three lawsuits brought by the
U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs.
On Sept. 29, 2008, the court certified a class of direct
purchasers.
On Oct. 5, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs that remains subject to
approval by the court before it becomes final. As part of the
agreement, the company will receive a release for all Direct-
Purchaser SRAM claims and do not admit any wrongdoing or
liability.
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is a
fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high-
performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as
digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications
and automotive electronics. The company's primary products are
high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low-and
medium-density dynamic random access memory. It also designs and
markets electrically erasable programmable ready only memory,
SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory sticks and card
reader- writers, and wireless chipsets.
LIVEDEAL INC: Continues to Defend GES Suit in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
LiveDeal, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action suit
captioned Global Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc.,
according to the company's Dec. 23, 2009, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the fiscal year ended Sept.
30, 2009.
On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. (GES) filed a
consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against the company in King
County (Washington) Superior Court.
GES has alleged in its complaint that the company's use of
activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.
GES is seeking injunctive relief against our use of the checks,
as well as a judgment in an amount equal to three times the
alleged damages sustained by GES and the members of the class.
LiveDeal has denied the allegations.
The parties have filed dispositive motions and anticipate a
ruling on such motions in early 2010.
LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com-- delivers best of
breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium-
sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow
Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way
for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local,
relevant customers via the Internet. Through its online
property, www.livedeal.com, LiveDeal delivers local search
engine marketing (SEM) through its LiveAdvisor TM and LiveClicks
TM products that combine best-of-breed technology with a strong
partnership model and an inside sales team to create an
efficient platform local businesses need to create and optimize
their Internet search advertising campaigns. Livedeal partners
with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK, Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com
and others. LiveDeal, Inc. is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Faces Suit over Securities Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
National Holdings Corp. faces a class action alleging violations
of the Securities Act, according to the company's Dec. 29, 2009,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.
In November 2009, James and Cheryl Merrill, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated
investors, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, Southern Division, against the
company and its subsidiary, National Securities Corp., in
connection with the purchase and sale of promissory notes issued
on or after Sept. 18, 2006 by one or more of Medical Capital
Holdings, Inc.'s special purpose corporations, including Medical
Provider Financial Corporation III, Medical Provider Financial
Corporation IV, Medical Provider Funding Corporation V and
Medical Provider Funding Corporation VI V.
The class action has not yet been certified or decertified.
The class members assert claims against NSC for violations of
Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section
77l, and for violations of 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 77l. The class members further assert claims
against the company under Section 15 of the Securities Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 770.
The class members seek compensatory damages, rescission or a
recessionary measure of damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, all in
undisclosed amounts.
National Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vfinance.com/-- is a
financial services organization, operating primarily through its
wholly owned subsidiaries, National Securities Corporation,
vFinance Investments, Inc., and EquityStation, Inc.
(collectively, the Broker Dealer Subsidiaries). The Broker
Dealer Subsidiaries conduct a national securities brokerage
business through its main offices in New York, New York, Boca
Raton, Florida, and Seattle, Washington. The company through its
Broker Dealer Subsidiaries offers service retail brokerage to
approximately 45,000 institutional clients, provides investment
banking, merger, acquisition and advisory services to micro,
small and mid-cap high growth companies, and engages in trading
securities. On July 1, 2008, National and vFinance, Inc.
announced the completion of the merger between the two companies.
NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Holdings Corp. faces a consolidated amended class action
complaint in connection with a series of offerings for oil and
gas investments, according to the company's Dec. 29, 2009, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.
In December 2009, plaintiffs Robert Adams, Joseph Billitteri,
Karen L. Bopp, IRA, Bussell Living Trust DTD 12/05/96, John
Gilgallon, Scott Jessen, Sharon Kreindel Revocable Trust DTD
02/09/2005, Mary Merline, James Merrill, Don Ribacchi and Lewis
Wilson, each on his, her or its own behalf and on behalf of all
similarly situated investors, filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against a number of broker-dealers,
including the company's subsidiary, National Securities Corp.,
and against a number such broker-dealers' parent companies,
including the company, in connection with a series of offerings
for oil and gas investments.
Each member of the class asserts claims against NSC for breach of
fiduciary duty and for violations of Section 33(A)(2) of the
Texas Securities Act. Each member seeks to hold the company
liable for NSC's conduct as a control person under Section
33(F)(1) of the Texas Securities Act.
The class members seek compensatory damages, rescission or a
recessionary measure of damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, all in undisclosed amounts.
National Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vfinance.com/-- is a
financial services organization, operating primarily through its
wholly owned subsidiaries, National Securities Corporation,
vFinance Investments, Inc., and EquityStation, Inc.
(collectively, the Broker Dealer Subsidiaries). The Broker
Dealer Subsidiaries conduct a national securities brokerage
business through its main offices in New York, New York, Boca
Raton, Florida, and Seattle, Washington. The company through its
Broker Dealer Subsidiaries offers service retail brokerage to
approximately 45,000 institutional clients, provides investment
banking, merger, acquisition and advisory services to micro,
small and mid-cap high growth companies, and engages in trading
securities. On July 1, 2008, National and vFinance, Inc.
announced the completion of the merger between the two companies.
NOVELL INC: Settlement Gets Final Approval from New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated amended class action complaint
against SilverStream, which Novell, Inc. acquired in July 2002,
has received final approval from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's
Dec. 22, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
SilverStream and several of its former officers and directors, as
well as the underwriters who handled SilverStream's two public
offerings, were named as defendants in several class action
complaints that were filed on behalf of certain former
stockholders of SilverStream who purchased shares of SilverStream
common stock between Aug. 16, 1999, and Dec. 6, 2000.
These complaints are closely related to several hundred other
complaints that the same plaintiffs have brought against other
issuers and underwriters.
These complaints all allege violations of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
In particular, they allege, among other things, that there was
undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters of the
public offerings of all of the issuers, including SilverStream.
A Consolidated Amended Complaint with respect to all of these
complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, on April 19, 2002.
Various parties participated in settlement discussions and
reached a proposed settlement agreement.
This agreement received preliminary approval from the Court in
June 2009.
After notice to the plaintiff class, the settlement agreement
received final approval from the Court on Sept. 10, 2009.
Novell, Inc. -- http://www.novell.com/-- through its
infrastructure software and ecosystem of business partnerships,
integrate mixed information technology (IT) environments,
allowing people and technology to work as one. The company has
four segments: Open Platform Solutions, Identity and Security
Management, Systems and Resource Management, and Workgroup.
ORACLE CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Dismissal of Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California's dismissal of the consolidated
class-action lawsuit against Oracle Corp. remains pending,
according to the company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 30, 2009.
Stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the company and
its Chief Executive Officer on and after March 9, 2001.
Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a
revised second amended complaint. The last dismissal was with
prejudice.
On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The revised second amended complaint named the
company's Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial
Officer, who currently is Chairman of the company's Board of
Directors, and a former Executive Vice President as defendants.
This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through
March 1, 2001.
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about the company's actual and expected financial
performance and the performance of certain of the company's
applications products, while certain individual defendants were
selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants
sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.
Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting
violations.
On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment
against all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against
the company's Chief Executive Officer.
On Aug. 7, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions. On Oct. 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a
default judgment against defendants or various other sanctions
because of defendants' alleged destruction of evidence.
A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007. On
April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge.
On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on
plaintiffs' sanctions motion.
On Sept. 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants.
The order also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs'
motion for sanctions. The court denied plaintiffs' request that
judgment be entered in plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged
destruction of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions
were appropriate for several categories of evidence.
The court found that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences
were appropriate for two categories of evidence:
(1) e-mails from the company's Chief Executive Officer's
account, and
(2) materials that had been created in connection with a
book regarding the company's Chief Executive Officer.
The court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the company's
Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to revise and
re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise contours of
the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to take these
inferences into account with regard to the propriety of summary
judgment.
The court also directed the parties to address certain legal
issues in the briefing.
On Oct. 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered
mediation, which did not result in a settlement.
On Oct. 20, 2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
and plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer.
The parties also filed several motions challenging the
admissibility of the testimony of various expert witnesses.
Opposition briefs were filed on Nov. 17, 2008, and reply briefs
were filed on Dec. 12, 2008.
A hearing on all these motions was held on Feb. 13, 2009.
On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment against the commpany's Chief Executive Officer,
and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with
prejudice.
On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on Nov. 30, 2009.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.
The suit is In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988 (N.D. Calif.) (Illston, J.).
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
1438 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-896-1000
Fax: 415-896-2249
E-mail: jennie@libertylawoffice.com
Representing the defendants is:
Dorian Daley, Esq.
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065
Phone: 650-506-5200
Fax: 650-506-7114
REX ENERGY: Units Settle Illinois Suit for $1.9 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Two of Rex Energy Corp.'s wholly owned subsidiaries, Rex Energy
Operating Corp. and PennTex Resources Illinois, Inc., entered, on
Dec. 17, 2009, into a Settlement Agreement and Release with Julia
Leib and Lisa Thompson, individually and on behalf of a certified
class, to settle a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Oct. 17,
2006.
The class action lawsuit involved several causes of action
generally alleging that hydrogen sulfide released in connection
with the Defendants' oil producing operations in and around the
towns of Bridgeport and Petrolia, Illinois had resulted in
contamination of the class area with hydrogen sulfide. The
Settlement Agreement will become effective upon entry by the
district court of a final approval order.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants,
without any admission of liability, agreed to pay the class a
total of $1.9 million, of which Leib and Thompson will each
receive $25,000. Pursuant to the terms of a pollution liability
policy with Federal Insurance Company, $1.0 million of the
settlement payment will be funded by the Company's insurance
carrier.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in return for
the above consideration, each member of the class, including Leib
and Thompson, has released all claims against the Defendants and
their affiliates that in any way arose from or related to
hydrogen sulfide or other environmental conditions in the class
area which were the subject of, or could have been the subject
of, the claims alleged in the class action lawsuit, including any
class action medical monitoring claims.
In addition, each class member released any claims related to any
future releases of hydrogen sulfide in the class area on the
condition that the Defendants substantially comply with the terms
and conditions of the Consent Decree previously entered into with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department
of Justice on Sept. 7, 2006.
Leib and Thompson also agreed to release any individual claims
they may have for medical monitoring.
The Settlement Agreement does not provide for a release of any
potential individual claims of other class members since those
claims were not the subject of the class action lawsuit.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants also agreed
to permanently plug four inactive oil wells adjacent to the
residences of Leib and Thompson.
The Settlement Agreement was conditioned upon the entry of an
order of the district court granting preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was issued by the district court on Dec. 21,
2009.
The Settlement Agreement is also conditioned upon the entry of an
order by the district court granting final approval to the
settlement and providing for the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice.
In the preliminary approval order, the district court set a final
approval hearing for March 26, 2010. Under the preliminary
approval order, members of the class have until March 12, 2010 to
object to the proposed settlement as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement will become effective thirty days after
the district court has entered the final approval order. In the
event that final approval of the Settlement Agreement does not
occur, the Settlement Agreement will become null and void,
according to the company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Rex Energy Corporation -- http://www.rexenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and gas company operating in the Illinois Basin
and the Appalachian Basin.
STATION CASINOS: Former Employees' Suit Remains Stayed in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint Station Casinos, Inc., remains
stayed pending resolution of its bankruptcy petition, according
to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.
On Feb. 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr
filed a purported class action complaint against the company and
certain of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Case No. CV-00141 (Federal Court Action).
The plaintiffs are all former employees of the company or its
subsidiaries.
The complaint alleged that the company:
(i) failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,
(ii) failed to pay overtime,
(iii) failed to timely pay wages and
(iv) unlawfully converted certain earned wages.
The complaint in the Federal Court Action sought, among other
relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages
in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.
On Oct. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. During a hearing on that motion, the U.S. District
Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the
matter.
After briefing regarding the jurisdiction question, on May 16,
2009, the U.S. District Court dismissed the Federal Court Action
for lack of jurisdiction and entered a judgment in the company's
favor.
Subsequently, on July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a purported
class action complaint against the company and certain of its
subsidiaries in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case
No. A-09-595614-C (State Court Action).
The complaint in the State Court Action alleges substantially the
same claims that were alleged in the complaint in the Federal
Court Action.
On Aug. 19, 2009, the corporate defendants, other than the
company, filed an answer responding to the complaint.
Subsequently, on Aug. 27, 2009, the corporate defendants, other
than the company, filed a motion to stay the State Court Action
pending the resolution of the company's bankruptcy petition.
That motion was granted on Sept. 30, 2009.
Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- is a
gaming and entertainment company that currently owns and
operates nine major hotel/casino properties (one of which is 50%
owned) and eight smaller casino properties (three of which are
50% owned), in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as
manages a casino for a Native American tribe.
TORO CO: Settlement Discussion on Consumer Fraud Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement discussions are continuing in a consolidated consumer
fraud class action against The Toro Co. in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin over
horsepower labels on its lawnmowers, according to the company's
Dec. 22, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission or the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
On June 3, 2004, eight individuals who claim to have purchased
lawnmowers in Illinois and Minnesota filed a lawsuit in Illinois
state court against the company and eight other defendants
alleging that the horsepower labels on the products the
plaintiffs purchased were inaccurate.
On May 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to
add 84 additional plaintiffs and an engine manufacturer as an
additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts violations
of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act and statutory and common law claims arising from the
laws of 48 states. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class
of all persons in the U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1994 through
the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke or
four-stroke gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was
manufactured or sold by the defendants. The amended complaint
seeks an injunction, unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, treble damages under the RICO Act, and attorneys fees.
In late May 2006, the case was removed to U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois. On Aug. 1, 2006, all of
the defendants, except MTD Products Inc., filed motions to
dismiss the claims in the amended complaint. On Aug. 4, 2006,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement with MTD Products, Inc., and certification
of a settlement class.
All remaining non-settling defendants have filed counterclaims
against MTD Products, Inc. for potential contribution amounts,
and MTD Products, Inc. has filed cross claims against the non-
settling defendants. On Dec. 21, 2006, another defendant,
American Honda Motor Co., notified the company that it had
reached an agreement of settlement with the plaintiffs.
On March 30, 2007, the court entered an order dismissing
plaintiffs complaint, subject to the ability to re-plead certain
claims pursuant to a detailed written order to follow.
In May 2008, the court issued a memorandum and order that (I)
dismissed the RICO claim in its entirety with prejudice; (ii)
dismissed all non-Illinois state-law claims without prejudice
and with instructions that such claims must be filed in local
courts; and (iii) rejected the proposed settlement with MTD.
The proposed Honda settlement was not under consideration by the
court and was not addressed in the memorandum and order. Also
in May 2008, the plaintiffs (i) re-filed the Illinois claims
with the court; and (ii) filed non-Illinois claims in federal
courts in the District of New Jersey and the Northern District
of California with essentially the same state law claims.
In June 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel")
that (i) stated their intent to file lawsuits in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia; and (ii) sought to have all of the
cases transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In
August 2008, the MDL Panel issued an order denying the transfer
request. Additional lawsuits, some of which included additional
plaintiffs, were filed in various federal and state courts
asserting essentially the same state law claims.
In September 2008, the company and other defendants filed a
motion with the MDL Panel that sought to transfer the multiple
actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In early December
2008, the MDL Panel issued an order that (i) transferred 23
lawsuits, which collectively asserted claims under the laws of
16 states, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,
(ii) selected the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin as the transferee district, and (iii) provided that
additional lawsuits will be treated as "tag-along" actions in
accordance with its rules.
An initial hearing was held in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin in January 2009. At that hearing,
the Court (i) appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and (ii)
entered a stay of all litigation for 120 days so that the
parties could explore mediation.
Formal mediation proceedings were commenced and settlement
discussions are continuing.
The Toro Company -- http://www.toro.com/-- is engaged in
designing, manufacturing and marketing professional turf
maintenance equipment and services, turf and micro irrigation
systems, landscaping equipment, and residential yard products.
The company classifies its operations in two business segments:
professional and residential. A third segment called other
consists of domestic company-owned distributorships, corporate
functions, and Toro Credit Company, a wholly owned financing
subsidiary. The company's products are advertised and sold at
the retail level under the trademarks of Toro, Exmark, Irritrol,
Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie. Toro manufactures its
products in the United States, Mexico, Australia, Italy, and the
United Kingdom.
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Hearing on Plaintiff's Appeal Set for Jan. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Israeli Supreme Court has set a hearing for Jan. 11, 2010 to
consider the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the District
Court's ruling favoring VeriFone Holdings, Inc., according to the
company's Dec. 22, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct.
31, 2009.
On Jan. 27, 2008, a class-action complaint was filed against the
company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, on
behalf of purchasers of the company's stock on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages
allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the
publication of erroneous financial reports.
On May 25, 2008, the court held a hearing on the company's
motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings, after which the court
requested that the plaintiff and the company submit additional
information to the Court with respect to the applicability of
Israeli law to dually registered companies. This additional
information was submitted to the court in June 2008 and the
parties currently awaiting the court's ruling on this issue.
On Sept. 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the
company's favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in
determining its liability.
On Oct. 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.
The company's response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on
Jan. 18, 2009.
Because the company's motion to stay will depend upon the
Supreme Court's ruling, the District Court has stayed its
proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion
for leave to appeal.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is a
global provider of technology that enables electronic payment
transactions and value-added services at the point of sale. The
company's system solutions consist of point of sale electronic
payment devices that run the company's and third-party operating
systems, security and encryption software and certified payment
software, as well as third party, value-added applications.
VeriFone Holdings' system solutions process a range of payment
types, including signature and PIN-based (personal identification
number) debit cards, credit cards,
contactless/radio frequency identification, cards, smart cards,
pre-paid gift and other stored-value cards, electronic bill
payment, check authorization and conversion, signature capture
and electronic benefits transfer. The company's electronic
payment systems are available in several distinctive modular
configurations, offering customers flexibility to support a
variety of connectivity options.
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Holdings, Inc., faces a second amended complaint
alleging securities fraud, according to the company's Dec. 22,
2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009.
On or after Dec. 4, 2007, several securities class action claims
were filed against the company and certain of its officers,
former officers, and a former director.
These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California as In re VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP.
The original actions were:
-- Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
C 07-6140 MHP;
-- Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW;
-- Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
C 07-6197 VRW;
-- Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
C 07-6218 MMC;
-- Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC;
-- Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC;
-- Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP;
-- Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW;
and
-- Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.
The Vaughn suit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on
March 7, 2008.
On Aug. 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National Elevator
Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel.
Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint
on Oct. 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control
person liability against the company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors, based on allegations that the
company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements regarding its business and operations during
the putative class periods and seeks unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.
The company filed its motion to dismiss on Dec. 31, 2008. The
court granted that motion on May 26, 2009 and dismissed the
consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend
within 30 days of the ruling.
The proceedings were stayed pending a mediation held in October
2009 at which time the parties failed to reach a mutually
agreeable settlement.
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint was filed on Dec. 3, 2009
and the company's responsive motion is due on Jan. 25, 2010.
Although discovery has not yet commenced in this action, on Nov.
20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion to partially lift the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act discovery stay in order to
obtain documents produced by the company to the SEC in connection
with the SEC's investigation into the restatement of our fiscal
year 2007 interim financial statements.
The company's opposition to this motion is due Jan. 11, 2010,
with a hearing on the motion scheduled for Feb. 1, 2010.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is a
global provider of technology that enables electronic payment
transactions and value-added services at the point of sale. The
company's system solutions consist of point of sale electronic
payment devices that run the company's and third-party operating
systems, security and encryption software and certified payment
software, as well as third party, value-added applications.
VeriFone Holdings' system solutions process a range of payment
types, including signature and PIN-based (personal identification
number) debit cards, credit cards,
contactless/radio frequency identification, cards, smart cards,
pre-paid gift and other stored-value cards, electronic bill
payment, check authorization and conversion, signature capture
and electronic benefits transfer. The company's electronic
payment systems are available in several distinctive modular
configurations, offering customers flexibility to support a
variety of connectivity options.
*********
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 2010. 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 * * *