/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100113.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 13, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 8 Headlines AIR FRANCE 358: $12 Million Settlement Approved by Toronto Judge CALIFORNIA: Trial in ProtectMarriage.com Case Set for March 2011 CALIFORNIA: Female Prison Guards Complain About Workplace CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN: Catholic Order Charged with Slavery CREDIT SUISSE: $24-Billion RICO Class Action Suit Filed in Idaho EQUITY LIFESTYLE: California Court Dismisses Amended Suit EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Amended Complaint in Washington FAIR FINANCE: Lawyer Says Investor Suit Won't Be Resolved Quickly GENZYME CORP: Shareholder Lawsuits Filed in D. Mass. GIORDANO'S ENTERPRISES: Chicago Pizza Chain Labor Suit Continues IMAX CORP: WCM's Motion to be Lead Plaintiff in Suit Denied IMAX CORP: Class Certification Motion Still Pending in Ontario INTESA SAMPAOLO: Class Action Suit Contests Italian Bank's Fees KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Securities Fraud Complaints Filed in S.D.N.Y. MERIX CORP: Discovery in Oregon Consolidated Complaint Ongoing MERIX CORP: Faces Amended Complaint on Planned Viasystems Merger MPS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits RENTECH INC: Says Shareholder Suits Are Without Merit SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend "Conley Investment" Suit SERVICE CORP: Class Certification Still Pending in "Garcia" Suit SERVICE CORP: "Sands" Suit in California in Preliminary Stages SERVICE CORP: Appellate Court Denies Reconsideration Motion SERVICE CORP: Defends Wage and Hour "Prise" Suit in Pennsylvania SERVICE CORP: "Stickle" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Pending SERVICE CORP: Defends "Welch" Wage and Hour Lawsuit in Calif. SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Accused, with State Farm, of Overcharging TOYS "R" US: Accused of Price-Fixing In E.D. Pa. Lawsuit UNICREDIT SPA: Class Action Suit Contests Italian Bank's Fees UNITED STATES: Class Sought in S.D. Tex. Customs & Border Lawsuit WALGREEN CO: Faces Second Amended Complaint in Illinois ********* AIR FRANCE 358: $12 Million Settlement Approved by Toronto Judge ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that many of the passengers who were aboard an Air France jet that overshot a runway at Toronto's Pearson International Airport more than four years ago will receive compensation through a class action lawsuit. A Toronto judge has approved a $12-million class action settlement with 184 passengers who were aboard Flight 358, which crashed and burned beyond the runway when it landed in a violent thunderstorm in August 2005. Air France will pay $10 million, and will be released from those passengers' claims stemming from the incident, according to a summary of the judgment. Airbus and Goodrich, the company that made the emergency evacuation system on the plane, will pay $1.65 million, and will also have claims against them in the suit released. Air France Flight 358 was carrying 297 passengers and 12 crew members on a flight from Paris. The plane ran off the runway into a ravine, where it burst into flames. Some of the passengers were forced to jump from the plane because the evacuation slides weren't working properly. A lawyer representing the claimants: J.J. Camp, Q.C. CAMP FIORANTE MATTHEWS 4th Floor, Randall Building 555 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V6B 1Z6 CANADA Telephone: (604) 689-7555 said he expects an additional $2-million settlement from the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, which operates Pearson airport, will be approved by the court. Mr. Camp said a small group of passengers who suffered serious physical or psychological injuries will be eligible for the maximum payout of $175,000. Passengers who weren't seriously harmed in the crash will receive the minimum payment, which will be between $5,000 to $10,000, Mr. Camp said. Passengers aboard the flight were from 17 different countries, but Mr. Camp said most of the claimants were from Canada and France. He said he expects passengers will receive settlement payouts in the first quarter of 2010. Mr. Camp said the lawsuit against NAV Canada, which provides air traffic control and air navigation services, will continue because NAV Canada didn't want to settle. The class action settlement deals with 184 passengers, but many of the other passengers have filed separate claims or settled their cases with Air France outside the class action lawsuit. CALIFORNIA: Trial in ProtectMarriage.com Case Set for March 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLASS NOTICE ATTENTION: AS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: The case of ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, Case No. 09-cv-00058, now pending in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of California, is an action on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, NationalOrganization for Marriage California, and the Class of Major Donors against several California state and local officials, including a Defendant Class consisting of all district attorneys with enforcement authority under the Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "PRA"), Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 81000 et seq. The lawsuit alleges that various provisions of the PRA violate the Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. 1. What is this case about? The Plaintiffs' action arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs allege that various provisions of the PRA violate their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and have asked the Court to enjoin Defendants with enforcement authority under the PRA from commencing criminal or civil actions for failing to comply with the provisions Plaintiffs allege are unconstitutional. The Defendants, including Jan Scully, the District Attorney for Sacramento County, California (the Class Representative for the Class of District Attorneys) have denied that the PRA violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. 2. Why am I receiving this notice? On August 27, 2009, the Court ordered that this litigation may proceed as a class action for all purposes. The classes certified by the Court consist of: * A Plaintiff Class of Major Donors, consisting of all individuals and organizations that have contributed $10,000 or more to Plaintiffs ProtectMarriage.com or National Organization for Marriage California. * A Defendant Class of District Attorneys, consisting of all district attorneys in the State of California who are granted the authority to enforce provisions of the PRA. * A Defendant Class of Elected Attorneys, consisting of all Elected City Attorneys in the State of California that are granted the authority to enforce provisions of the PRA. This notice is provided for the purpose of informing you of the pendency of this litigation and the certification of the class of which you may be a member and your right to be excluded from the class if you wish. 3. Why is the lawsuit a class action? The Court certified this lawsuit as a class action on August 27, 2009, finding that it meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions in federal courts. Specifically, the Court found that: * There are more fifty-eight California district attorneys empowered to enforce the PRA. * There are legal questions and facts that are common to each of them; * The claims against Jan Scully are typical of the claims against the rest of the Class; * Jan Scully and the lawyers representing her will fairly and adequately represent the Class' interests; * The common legal questions and facts are more important than questions that affect only individuals; and * This class action will be more efficient than having many individual lawsuits. By establishing the Class and issuing this Notice, the Court is not suggesting that the Class of District Attorneys will win or lose this case. Rather, the Court is simply acknowledging that those district attorneys in the State of California who are granted the authority to enforce provisions of the PRA meet the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for certification as a defendant class. The Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to prove their claims, and the Defendants will have an opportunity to present their defense, at a trial starting on March 14, 2011. 4. How will the case be prosecuted? This is a class action, which means the Class Representative (Jan Scully, District Attorney for Sacramento County, California) will defend the lawsuit on behalf of herself and the Class of District Attorneys. As long as the case isn't resolved by a settlement or otherwise, the Plaintiffs will have to the opportunity to prove their claims at a trial. The Defendants will likewise have the opportunity to present their defense. The trial is set to start on March 14, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom 7, 14th Floor. During the trial, a Jury or the Judge will hear all of the evidence to help them reach a decision about whether the Plaintiffs or Defendants are right about the claims in the lawsuit. 5. How do I participate in this class? Under the Court's order, you are a member of the certified Class of District Attorneys. If you wish to remain in the class you need do nothing at this time. Your rights will be represented by the class representative for the Defendant Class of Elected Attorneys, Jan Scully, the District Attorney for Sacramento County, California, and her counsel: Terence J. Cassidy, Esq. Kristina M. Hall, Esq. PORTER SCOTT, P.C. 350 University Ave., Ste. 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 929-1481 Facsimile: (916) 927-3706 If you remain in the class, you will be bound by any judgments entered in the case whether favorable or not favorable. [5]. What if I have further questions? Visit the website, http://www.telladf.org/ProtectMarriageCase where you will find the Court's Order Certifying the Class, the Complaint that the Plaintiffs submitted, the Defendants' Answer to the Complaint, as well as an Exclusion Request form. You may also speak to one of the lawyers by calling (812) 232-2434, or by writing to: Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom 1 S. Sixth St. Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 CALIFORNIA: Female Prison Guards Complain About Workplace --------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, female prison guards claim the California Department of Corrections does not protect them from inmates who harass them for confiscating pornography -- and the women say their supervisors join in the harassment. Since at least 2007, female officers and employees claim, lax enforcement of the Department's policies on public display of sexually explicit material has put them in danger by making them a target for hostile and aggressive inmates. Yvette Daniels, correctional counselor at N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility in San Joaquin County, says she repeatedly confiscated pornographic magazines, video games and movies from inmates, in accordance with policy, and turned them in to her superior Mark Miranda. Mr. Miranda then gave the stuff back to the inmates and told them that Ms. Daniels was the only officer who had a problem with inmates having pornography, according to the complaint. In August 2007, Ms. Daniels says, she complained of Mr. Miranda's unprofessional behavior, unfair treatment, discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment after Miranda repeatedly told a juvenile offender, "M-----f-----, you were messing with a fat girl," in Ms. Daniels's presence. At one point, Ms. Daniels was so scared of an inmate that had turned against her and had a history of problems with female authority figures that she had a lieutenant accompany her when she attempted to counsel him, the complaint states. Ms. Daniels says she submitted 15 complaints against Mr. Miranda and his superior, Rich Alvarado. All were ignored, she says. Ms. Daniels says she eventually was transferred to another, less desirable, facility. At least two other female employees, Maria Aguilar and Karen Currie, have complained of similar experiences but they say the prisons department ignored all their complaints. The class seeks an injunction and damages for sexual discrimination and retaliation. A copy of the Complaint in Daniels v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. 09-at-02090 (E.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/05/PrisonPorn.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Pamela Y. Price, Esq. Jeshawna R. Harrell, Esq. PRICE AND ASSOCIATES 1611 Telegraph Avenue, Ste. 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 452-0292 - and - John L. Burris, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone (510) 839-5200 CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN: Catholic Order Charged with Slavery -------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that members of two Catholic religious orders trafficked in children for decades, taking poor kids from their parents in Britain and Malta and promising to educate them in Australia, then putting them to a life of forced labor and physical and sexual abuse, according to a class action Complaint filed in Ellul, et al. v. The Congregation of Christian Brothers, The Order Of The Sisters Of Mercy, Mercy International Association and Catholic Religious Order, Case No. 09-cv-10590 (S.D.N.Y.) (Crotty, J.). Three former "child migrants" say the Congregation of Christian Brothers and the Order of the Sisters of Mercy took subsidies from the British, Australian and Maltese governments for the children's upkeep and education, but kept the money for themselves and gave the children nothing save hardship and pain, forcing them to beg for scraps of food and root around in pig troughs for sustenance. The plaintiffs say the religious orders took them from their homes under false pretenses and forced them into a horrific life of unending work, ignorance, violence and rape. Emmanuel Ellul, one of the named plaintiffs, says he was 14 when the Christian Brothers took him from Malta to Australia, ostensibly to be educated and returned to his family in a few years. On arriving, however, Mr. Ellul says he became a "working boy" on commercial farms controlled by the Brothers, where he was fed "starvation" rations, separated from his siblings, his birth certificate and his passport, and subjected to "conditions amounting to slavery." Mr. Ellul, now in his 60s, says the Christian Brothers told him his parents were dead, and he was beaten if caught speaking his native Maltese -- though the Brothers refused to teach him English. Australian officials estimate that as many as 10,000 "child migrants," some as young as 3 years old, emigrated from Britain to Australia between 1947 and 1967, many without the consent of their poor and absent parents. More than 300 children were taken from the British colony of Malta and forced to become "working boys," according to the complaint. In 2001 the Australian government released a report acknowledging that "the vast majority of child migrants were not orphans, that many were taken without parental consent and were subject to forced child labor on a massive scale in commercial contexts doing extremely arduous or backbreaking work of an adult nature," the complaint states. In November 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued a formal apology to the child migrants for the abuse they suffered. "Sorry -- for the tragedy, the absolute tragedy, of childhoods lost -- childhoods spent instead in austere and authoritarian places, where names were replaced by numbers, spontaneous play by regimented routine, the joy of learning by the repetitive drudgery of menial work," Mr. Rudd said. "Sorry -- for all these injustices to you, as children, who were placed in our care. As a nation, we must now reflect on those who did not receive proper care. We look back with shame that many of you were left cold, hungry and alone and with nowhere to hide and nobody to whom to turn." The class, including named plaintiffs Emmanuel Ellul, Valerie Carmack and Hazel Goulding, sued the Congregation of Christian Brothers and the Order of the Sisters of Mercy, alleging child trafficking, forced child labor, slavery, unjust enrichment and other charges. They want a jury trial and unspecified damages. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal Arthur DeYoung, Esq. Himanshu Rajan Sharma, Esq. SHARMA & DEYOUNG LLP 286 Madison Avenue, Suite 2002 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-516-1907 CREDIT SUISSE: $24-Billion RICO Class Action Suit Filed in Idaho ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class action claims Credit Suisse, "a foreign banking leviathan," extracted billions of dollars from the Idaho, Montana and Nevada economies by operating a loan scheme to defraud more than 3,000 investors in four high-end golf and ski resorts. The class seeks $24 billion in damages, claiming Credit Suisse caused catastrophic damage to interstate commerce, the real estate market and the investors. The two named plaintiffs sued on behalf of members of Tamarack Resort in Idaho, the Yellowstone Club in Montana, Lake Las Vegas in Nevada, and Ginn Sur Mer in the Bahamas. Named plaintiffs L.J. Gibson and Beau Blixseth claim Credit Suisse worked with "the world's most trusted" real estate appraisal firm, co-defendant Cushman & Wakefield, in a "loan to own" program. The class claims Credit Suisse used Cushman & Wakefield's appraisals to inflate the value of the resort properties. This gave Credit Suisse an opportunity to earn enormous up-front fees and eventually to force foreclosure or take control of the properties at prices significantly below market value, according to the 81-page complaint. The class claims that during Yellowstone's bankruptcy proceedings in May 2009, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ralph Kirscher commented that "the naked greed in this case combined with Credit Suisse's complete disregard for the [developer] or any other person or entity who was subordinated to Credit Suisse's first lien position, shocks the conscience of this Court." Still quoting the bankruptcy judge, the plaintiffs add, "While Credit Suisse's new loan product resulted in enormous fees to Credit Suisse in 2005, it resulted in financial ruin for several residential resort communities. Credit Suisse lined its pockets on the backs of the unsecured creditors." The class claims that the real losers were not with the "unsecured creditors" but the would-be homeowners and developers. And the class claims that Credit Suisse's "loan to own" scheme was allegedly funded in part by another scheme it ran assisting Iranian agencies to avoid international economic sanctions. The class seeks $8 billion in economic damages and $16 billion in punitive damages. A copy of the Complaint in Gibson, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00001 (D. Idaho), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/05/CreditSuisse.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert C. Huntley, Esq. 815 Washington St. P.O. Box 2188 Boise, ID 83701 Telephone: 208-388-1230 - and - James C. Sabalos, Esq. 3900 Essex Lane, Suite 730 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: 949-355-6084 - and - Philip H. Stillman, Esq. 508 Meadowmist Court, Suite B Olivenhain, CA 92024 Telephone: 888-235-4279 - and - Michael J. Flynn, Esq. P.O. Box 690 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Telephone: 858-775-7624 - and - John Flood, Esq. 802 N. Carancahue, Suite 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78470 Telephone: 361-654-8877 - and - Peter Chase Neumann, Esq. 136 Ridge Street Reno, VN 89501 Telephone: 775-786-3750 - and - Chris Flood, Esq. 914 Preston, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-223-8877 EQUITY LIFESTYLE: California Court Dismisses Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The California state court has dismissed an amended complaint against Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Oct. 16, 2008, the company was served with a class action lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named plaintiff. The suit alleges that, at the time of the PA Transaction, the company and other named defendants willfully failed to pay former California employees of Privileged Access and its affiliates who became employees of the company all of the wages they earned during their employment with PA, including accrued vacation time. The suit also alleges that the company improperly "stripped" those employees of their seniority. The suit asserts claims for alleged violation of the California Labor Code; alleged violation of the California Business & Professions Code and for alleged unfair business practices; alleged breach of contract; alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and for alleged unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory and statutory damages; restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorney's fees, expenses and costs; penalties; and exemplary and punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a dollar amount sought. On Dec. 18, 2008, the company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the complaint in its entirety without leave to amend. On May 14, 2009, the Court granted the company's demurrer and dismissed the complaint, in part without leave to amend and in part with leave to amend. On June 2, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 6, 2009, the company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety without leave to amend. On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court granted the company's demurrer and dismissed the amended complaint, in part without leave to amend and in part with leave to amend. Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. -- http://www.equitylifestyle.com/-- is an integrated owner and operator of lifestyle-oriented properties. The company leases individual developed areas (sites) with access to utilities for placement of factory built homes, cottages, cabins or recreational vehicles (RVs). As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company owned or had an ownership interest in a portfolio of 309 Properties located throughout the United States and Canada consisting of 112,074 residential sites. These Properties are located in 28 states and British Columbia. In August 2008, the company announced the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and certain liabilities of Privileged Access, LP. The company's Properties are designed for several home options of various sizes and designs that are produced off-site, installed and set on designated sites (Site Set) within the Properties. These homes can range from 400 to over 2,000 square feet. EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Amended Complaint in Washington ------------------------------------------------------- Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., faces an amended complaint filed in the Washington state court, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Dec. 16, 2008, the company was served with a class action lawsuit in Washington state court filed by a single named plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiff in the California class action. The complaint asserts on behalf of a putative class of Washington employees of PA who became employees of the company substantially similar allegations as are alleged in the California class action. The company moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed: (1) the first cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for failure to pay accrued vacation time; (2) the second cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for unpaid wages on termination; (3) the third cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for payment of wages less than entitled; and (4) the fourth cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.. The court did not dismiss the fifth cause of action for breach of contract, the sixth cause of action of the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and the seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment. On May 22, 2009, the company filed a motion for summary judgment on the causes of action not previously dismissed, which was denied. With leave of court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the material allegations of which the company denied in an answer filed on Sept. 11, 2009. Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. -- http://www.equitylifestyle.com/-- is an integrated owner and operator of lifestyle-oriented properties. The company leases individual developed areas (sites) with access to utilities for placement of factory built homes, cottages, cabins or recreational vehicles (RVs). As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company owned or had an ownership interest in a portfolio of 309 Properties located throughout the United States and Canada consisting of 112,074 residential sites. These Properties are located in 28 states and British Columbia. In August 2008, the company announced the acquisition of substantially all of the assets and certain liabilities of Privileged Access, LP. The company's Properties are designed for several home options of various sizes and designs that are produced off-site, installed and set on designated sites (Site Set) within the Properties. These homes can range from 400 to over 2,000 square feet. FAIR FINANCE: Lawyer Says Investor Suit Won't Be Resolved Quickly ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Leonard at The Daily Record reports that an attorney for a Columbus, Ohio, law firm representing investors in a class action lawsuit against Fair Finance Co. said litigation against the company and its directors "is not going to be resolved quickly." Dave Meyer, of David P. Meyer & Associates Co., said litigation like a class action lawsuit takes time and asked investors be patient with the legal process. "What I can tell you is this is not going to be resolved quickly," he said. "The lawsuit is going to take some time. There's no way I can give some estimation." Mr. Meyer, who said his law firm specializes in representing investors who were victims of securities fraud, filed a class action lawsuit against Akron-based Fair Finance on Dec. 4, with Indianapolis law firm Maddox Hargett & Caruso. They allege Fair Finance violated Ohio law and misrepresented important facts about securities to investors. The complaint further alleges current co-owners Tim Durham and Jim Cochran promoted the same values and business model the company originally had, but actually began to "deceive investors into investing tens of millions of their hard-earned life savings in the company even though the new owners had no intentions of continuing to operate the business as the Fair family had for so many years." Instead, the complaint alleges, Messrs. Durham and Cochran used Fair Finance "as their own personal bank." Since the announcement of the class action lawsuit, Mr. Meyer said his firm has received more than 300 calls from worried Ohio investors wondering if they could join the lawsuit. It's one of two lawsuits the Akron-based company is facing, as Critchfield, Critchfield & Johnston of Wooster filed a lawsuit Dec. 21. Mr. Meyer said he has had some contact with Fair Finance's attorneys. He described the early conversations as "just logistics at this point" and "substantive discussions." A civil complaint filed Nov. 24 by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Indiana accused Mr. Durham, his companies and associates of defrauding customers by getting them to buy investment certificates, and that the money was used to make interest and redemption payments to earlier investors. It was the same day Fair Finance's Akron headquarters was raided by the FBI. The civil complaint was later dismissed, however the investigation is ongoing. No one has been charged with criminal wrongdoing. News about the class action lawsuit filed in Summit County, Ohio, appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 9, 2009. GENZYME CORP: Shareholder Lawsuits Filed in D. Mass. ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors inflated the price Genzyme shares through false and misleading statements about its new drugs, shareholders claim in Boston Federal Court. Ball v. Termeer, et al., Case No. 09-cv-12198 (D. Mass.) (O'Toole, J.), was filed on Dec. 28, 2009, and Panzini, et ux. v. Termeer, et al., Case No. 09-cv-12170 (D. Mass.) (O'Toole, J.), was filed on Dec. 22, 2009, by: David Pastor, Esq. GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-742-9700 GIORDANO'S ENTERPRISES: Chicago Pizza Chain Labor Suit Continues ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Milhizer at the Chicago Daily Law Bulleting reports that when a restaurant faces accusations that it's illegally profiting from a wage deduction used to cover the costs of feeding its workers, an Illinois appeals panel has held that the restaurant can't try to fend off a potential class-action lawsuit by securing claim waivers from its workforce while the suit waits for a ruling on class certification. The 1st District Appellate Court answered this matter of first impression in a dispute brought by a former Giordano's worker in Lewis, et al. v. Giordano's Enterprises, et al., No. 1-08-2944. The popular pizza chain, the news story relates, has a policy of deducting 25 cents per hour from its hourly employees' wages to cover the cost of providing those workers with food and drinks during their shifts. The deduction is legal as long as the company doesn't profit from it. But former employee Mina V. Lewis accused the restaurant chain of profiting from the deduction in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Wage Payment and Collection Act. Ms. Lewis moved for class certification in Cook County Circuit Court, and the matter was set for a ruling in November 2007. A few days before that scheduled ruling, the restaurant requested an emergency motion to delay the certification so that it could try to negotiate a settlement. Over Lewis' objection, Circuit Judge LeRoy K. Martin Jr. granted the motion, and he also approved a second delay. During the delay period, Giordano's obtained signatures from more than 350 current employees who agreed to accept $10 to release the restaurant from all potential claims resulting from the violations that Lewis alleged. Ms. Lewis then convinced Judge Martin to bar the restaurant from obtaining additional waivers. In retrospect, Judge Martin said that he shouldn't have granted the two delays because the restaurant engaged in "little or no" good-faith settlement negotiations, and it appeared that the defendants used the delay to obtain the releases. Judge Martin then certified the class in two categories: workers who get tips and those who don't get tips but at least earn minimum wage. Martin then asked the Illinois Appellate Court to decide whether waivers like the one that Giordano's secured should be declared void when a motion for class certification is pending. A three-member panel of state appellate justices held Wednesday that the releases are invalid. The 24-page opinion was written by Justice Patrick J. Quinn, with concurrence from Justices Michael J. Murphy and Sharon Johnson Coleman. In its analysis, the panel noted that its research revealed no other Illinois cases like this one when disputes are brought under the state's wage laws. So the panel looked for guidance under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act. Examining federal case law, the justices held that the courts have generally held that private releases of wage claims aren't permitted. Giordano's couldn't persuade the panel to use an Illinois case from 2006 as a guide. In Kim v. Citigroup Inc., 368 Ill. App. 3d 298, a financial consultant agreed to participate in a company program that paid part of his salary with stock that was subject to a two-year vesting period. The deal was that the employee would forfeit the stock if he left the company or was fired for cause before the stock vested. In that case, the plaintiff voluntarily left before the stock was vested and then brought a class-action suit against Citigroup to recover the cash that he would have been paid if he had not participated in the plan. The plaintiff lost in appellate court when justices ruled that the deduction was valid under the Wage Payment Act. In Giordano's case, the justices held that Kim isn't the controlling precedent, in part because the workers in Kim were paid substantially more than minimum wage, and they voluntarily entered the company stock program. The justices also rejected Giordano's argument that prohibiting private settlements in bona fide wage disputes interferes with an individual's freedom to contract. The panel said that the freedom isn't unlimited and cited case law to say that contracts "that are contrary to public policy will not be enforced." The panel said that the two statutes in question here were enacted to protect employees. Ms. Lewis was represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Law Office of James X. Bormes P.C. 8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1316 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-201-0575 - and - Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. Peter E. Converse, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. CONVERSE & BROWN LLC 105 West Adams Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-789-9700 Mr. Bormes called the ruling a "big decision because it applies to all releases for Illinois wage law claims." He also said that the decision can apply beyond the hospitality industry and can affect any hourly worker who has a wage claim. To explain his point, Mr. Bormes addressed the issue as if the decision had gone against his client. "If the court said, 'Yeah you can get a private release,' every employer -- every three months, six months, once a year -- would pay an additional $10 and get a release. And any wage violations that [the employer] may have committed would be wiped out," Mr. Bormes said. Going forward on the merits of the lawsuit, the plaintiff will now argue that the 25-cent hourly deduction exceeds the restaurant's cost to provide the meals. Giordano's was represented by: Robert W. Fioretti, Esq. John Benton Lower, Esq. Charles A. Brizzolara, Esq. Maureen K. Zaeske, Esq. Michael D. Wong, Esq. FIORETTI & LOWER LTD. 222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1550 Chicago, IL 60606-6000 Telephone: 312-568-5490 Mr. Lower said that he respects the court's ruling and the clarity that the decision provides. Most hourly Giordano's employees work six-hour shifts, Mr. Lower said, so the debate will address whether the company is turning a profit by deducting $1.50 per day to provide a meal and unlimited drinks. Mr. Lower added his firm started representing Giordano's after the restaurant secured the waivers from its current employees. IMAX CORP: WCM's Motion to be Lead Plaintiff in Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Court of Appeals has denied the request of Westchester Capital Management, Inc., to be the lead plaintiff in a consolidated amended class action complaint against IMAX Corp., according to the company's Nov. 5, 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 officers and directors were named as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed between Aug. 11, 2006 and Sept. 18, 2006, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Jan. 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. On Oct. 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the class period regarding the company's revenue recognition of theater system installations, and failing to disclose material information concerning the company's revenue recognition practices. The amended complaint also added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the company's auditors, as a defendant. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Dec. 10, 2007. On Sept. 16, 2008, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order, denying the motion. On Oct. 6, 2008, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On Oct. 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Fact discovery on the merits commenced on Nov. 14, 2008 and is ongoing. On March 13, 2009, the Court granted a second prospective lead plaintiff's request to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order naming Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and issued an order denying without prejudice plaintiff's class certification motion pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration. On June 29, 2009, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration and appointed Snow Capital Investment Partners, L.P. as the lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. Westchester Capital Management, Inc., appealed this decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied its petition on Oct. 1, 2009. IMAX Corp. -- http://www.imax.com/-- together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is an entertainment technology company specializing in motion picture technologies and large-format film presentations. Its principal business is the design and manufacture of large-format digital and film-based theater systems, sale or lease of such systems, and the conversion of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Hollywood feature films for exhibition on such systems worldwide. IMAX CORP: Class Certification Motion Still Pending in Ontario -------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has yet to decide whether to approve the request of the plaintiffs for certification of the action against IMAX Corp. as a class proceeding, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. A class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 20, 2006 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities laws. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the company's securities between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006. The lawsuit is in an early stage and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses. The plaintiffs require leave of the Court before they are permitted to proceed with certain claims they have made pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) and have filed a motion to obtain leave, along with a separate motion for certification of the action as a class proceeding. The company has opposed both of these motions and a hearing on the motions took place during the week of Dec. 15, 2008. IMAX Corp. -- http://www.imax.com/-- together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is an entertainment technology company specializing in motion picture technologies and large-format film presentations. Its principal business is the design and manufacture of large-format digital and film-based theater systems, sale or lease of such systems, and the conversion of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Hollywood feature films for exhibition on such systems worldwide. INTESA SAMPAOLO: Class Action Suit Contests Italian Bank's Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Armorel Kenna at Bloomberg News reports that Intesa Sanpaolo SpA and UniCredit SpA, Italy's two biggest banks, may face the country's first class-action lawsuit over overdraft fees charged by the lenders after new legislation went into late last month. Consumer group Codacons yesterday presented a complaint over Intesa Sanpaolo's fee to a court in Turin, and for UniCredit in Rome. The banks could face 6.25 billion euros ($9 billion) in claims if the almost 25 million Italians affected by the fees sign up for the suit, the group said on its Web site today. The 2003 bankruptcy of Parmalat Finanziaria SpA, which wiped out the savings of more than 100,000 Italian stock and bondholders, prompted the push for class-action legislation. The new law is only retroactive to August of last year, meaning investors in Parmalat won't be able to take advantage of the measure. Italian banks charged higher fees on loans and credit lines to make up for overdraft fees canceled by the government in July, the country's Antitrust Authority ruled on Dec. 29. The higher charges are in some instances 15 times more than the ones they replaced, Codacons said. Codacons invited account holders to register on its Web Site yesterday after presenting the lawsuit and said if the courts admit the case they will be able to claim compensation for damages. UniCredit is Italy's largest bank, followed by Intesa Sanpaolo. Both are based in Milan. KOHLBERG CAPITAL: Securities Fraud Complaints Filed in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Kohlberg Capital inflated the price of its securities through false and misleading statements, investors claim in Manhattan Federal Court. Angeleri v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 09-cv-10609 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cedarbaum, J.), was filed on Dec. 31, 2009, by: Phillip C. Kim, Esq. Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fagin v. Kohlberg Capital Corp., Case No. 10-cv-00080 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed on Jan. 6, 2010, by: Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Marc Ian Gross, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 MERIX CORP: Discovery in Oregon Consolidated Complaint Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in a consolidated class action complaint against Merix Corp. is ongoing, according to the company's Jan. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 28, 2009. Four purported class action complaints were filed against Merix and certain of its executive officers and directors on June 17, 2004, June 24, 2004 and July 9, 2004. The complaints were consolidated in a single action entitled In re Merix Corporation Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 04- 826-MO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. After the court granted the company's motion to dismiss without prejudice, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. That complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making certain inaccurate and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection with the January 2004 public offering of approximately $103.4 million of the company's common stock. In September 2006, the Court dismissed that complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the second amended complaint seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The company sought rehearing which was denied and rehearing en banc was also denied. The company obtained a stay of the mandate from the Ninth Circuit and filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 22, 2008. On Dec. 15, 2008, the Supreme Court denied the certiorari petition and the case was remanded back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. On May 15, 2009, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all investors who purchased in the public offering and who were damaged thereby. On Nov. 5, 2009, the court partially granted the certification motion and certified a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock from an underwriter directly pursuant to the company's Jan. 29, 2004 offering, who held the stock through May 13, 2004, and who were damaged thereby. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. Merix Corporation -- http://www.merix.com/-- is a global manufacturing service provider of printed circuit boards (PCBs) for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers and their electronic manufacturing service (EMS) providers. The company's products include multi-layer rigid PCBs, which are the platforms used to interconnect microprocessors, integrated circuits and other components that are essential to the operation of electronic products and systems. The company's markets include automotive, defense and aerospace, communications, computing, industrial, networking, peripherals, and test end markets. It has manufacturing facilities in Huiyang and Huizhou, in the People's Republic of China. MERIX CORP: Faces Amended Complaint on Planned Viasystems Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merix Corp. faces a consolidated amended class action complaint over its sale to Viasystems Group, Inc., according to the company's Jan. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 28, 2009. Merix, its board of directors and Viasystems are named as defendants in two putative class action lawsuits brought by alleged Merix shareholders challenging the company's proposed merger with Viasystems. The shareholder actions were both filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah. The actions are called: (i) Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund v. Merix Corporation, et al., filed Oct. 13, 2009, Case No. 0910-14399 and (ii) W. Donald Wybert v. Merix Corporation, et al., filed on or about Nov. 5, 2009, Case No. 0911-15521. Both shareholder actions generally allege, among other things, that each member of the company's board of directors breached fiduciary duties to Merix and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of Merix to Viasystems for consideration that does not maximize value to shareholders. The complaints also allege that Viasystems and Merix aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the company's board of directors. The shareholder actions seek equitable relief, including to enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms. On Nov. 23, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the cases into one matter. On or about Dec. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which substantially repeats the allegations of the original complaints, adds Maple Acquisition Corp., the Viasystems subsidiary formed for the merger,as a defendant and also alleges that Merix did not make sufficient disclosures regarding the merger. Merix Corporation -- http://www.merix.com/-- is a global manufacturing service provider of printed circuit boards (PCBs) for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers and their electronic manufacturing service (EMS) providers. The company's products include multi-layer rigid PCBs, which are the platforms used to interconnect microprocessors, integrated circuits and other components that are essential to the operation of electronic products and systems. The company's markets include automotive, defense and aerospace, communications, computing, industrial, networking, peripherals, and test end markets. It has manufacturing facilities in Huiyang and Huizhou, in the People's Republic of China. MPS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- MPS Group, Inc. and the other named defendants have entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiff's counsel regarding the settlement of two putative class action lawsuits filed in response to the announcement of the proposed merger of MPS Group with Adecco Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Jaguar Acquisition Corp., a Florida corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Adecco, according to the company's Jan. 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Under the terms of the memorandum, MPS Group, the other named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuits, subject to court approval. If the court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum, the lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice. MPS Group and the other defendants deny all of the allegations in the lawsuits and believe that the existing disclosures regarding the proposed merger are appropriate under the law. Nevertheless, MPS Group and the other defendants have agreed to settle the putative class action lawsuits in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the closing of the merger. Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, MPS Group has agreed to provide additional information to its shareholders through a publicly available filing, in order to supplement the proxy statement previously provided to shareholders in connection with the special shareholders meeting concerning the proposed merger. In return for the additional disclosures, the plaintiffs in both actions have agreed to the dismissal of their respective actions and to a stay of the proceedings, subject to the execution and approval of a final settlement agreement. In addition, the company has agreed to the payment of the legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, in an amount to be negotiated by the parties. This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid in the merger. MPS Group, Inc. -- http://www.mpsgroup.com/-- is a leading provider of staffing, consulting, and solutions in the disciplines of information technology, finance and accounting, law, engineering, marketing and creative, property, and healthcare. MPS Group delivers its services to businesses and government entities in the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Asia. A Fortune 1000 company with headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida, MPS Group trades on the New York Stock Exchange. RENTECH INC: Says Shareholder Suits Are Without Merit ----------------------------------------------------- Rentech, Inc. (NYSE AMEX: RTK) confirmed receipt of the purported class-action lawsuits were filed and announced on December 29, 2009 and December 30, 2009, against the Company and certain of its officers and or directors alleging that during the periods of February 8, 2008, through December 15, 2009, and May 9, 2008, through December 14, 2009, respectively, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Rentech's business, operations and prospects. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of alleged classes of purchasers of the Company's stock during the periods. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend these actions. News about the filings appeared in yesterday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Rentech, Inc. -- http://www.rentechinc.com/-- incorporated in 1981, provides clean energy solutions. The Company's Rentech- SilvaGas biomass gasification process can convert multiple biomass feedstocks into synthesis gas (syngas) for production of renewable fuels and power. Combining the gasification process with Rentech's unique application of proven syngas conditioning and clean-up technology and the patented Rentech Process based on Fischer-Tropsch chemistry, Rentech offers an integrated solution for production of synthetic fuels from biomass. The Rentech Process can also convert syngas from fossil resources into ultra- clean synthetic jet and diesel fuels, specialty waxes and chemicals. Final product upgrading is provided under an alliance with UOP, a Honeywell company. Rentech develops projects and licenses these technologies for application in synthetic fuels and power facilities worldwide. Rentech Energy Midwest Corporation, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, manufactures and sells nitrogen fertilizer products including ammonia, urea ammonia nitrate, urea granule, and urea solution in the corn-belt region of the central United States. SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend "Conley Investment" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit styled Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Civil Action 04-MD-1609; in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (2003 Securities Lawsuit), according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The 2003 Securities Lawsuit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits: (1) Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL; in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; (2) Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL; in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; and (3) Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Cause No. 04-CV-20114; in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The 2003 Securities Lawsuit names as defendants SCI and several of SCI's current and former executive officers or directors. The 2003 Securities Lawsuit is a purported class action alleging that the defendants failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of human remains and burial sites at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida. No discovery has occurred and the company cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. The company operates through two business segments: funeral and cemetery. SCI conducts both funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada, and funeral operations in Germany. SERVICE CORP: Class Certification Still Pending in "Garcia" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class has yet to be certified in the suit styled Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc, a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., according to Service Corporation International's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The suit was filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No.: 04-25646 CA 32. Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia. Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor record keeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the decedent could not be readily located. Subsequently, the decedent's grave was located and verified. In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this was due to poor record keeping, maps, and surveys at the cemetery. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended class action complaint and added two additional named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. The company operates through two business segments: funeral and cemetery. SCI conducts both funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada, and funeral operations in Germany. SERVICE CORP: "Sands" Suit in California in Preliminary Stages -------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit styled F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.; Case No. BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles - Central District, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. This case was filed in September 2009 against SCI and certain subsidiaries regarding the company's Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission Hills, California. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. The plaintiff claims the cemetery damaged and desecrated burials in order to make room for subsequent burials. The case is in its preliminary stages. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. The company operates through two business segments: funeral and cemetery. SCI conducts both funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada, and funeral operations in Germany. SERVICE CORP: Appellate Court Denies Reconsideration Motion ----------------------------------------------------------- The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the ruling denying class certification in a suit against Service Corporation International, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The company is named as a defendant in an antitrust case filed in 2005. The case is Cause No 4:05-CV-03394; Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston (Funeral Consumers Case). This was a purported class action on behalf of casket consumers throughout the United States alleging that the company and several other companies involved in the funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws and state consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive conduct associated with the sale of caskets. Based on the case proceeding as a class action, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants range from approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion, before trebling. The company denies that it engaged in anticompetitive practices related to the company's casket sales and it has filed reports of its experts, which vigorously dispute the validity of the plaintiffs' damages theories and calculations. As of Nov. 5, 2009, the company has successfully contested the class action allegations. In November 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued recommendations that motions for class certification be denied in the Funeral Consumers Case. In March 2009, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendations and denied class certification. In June 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' motion requesting permission to appeal the District Court's ruling denying class certification. Also in June 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs motion requesting that the court reconsider its ruling. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. The company operates through two business segments: funeral and cemetery. SCI conducts both funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada, and funeral operations in Germany. SERVICE CORP: Defends Wage and Hour "Prise" Suit in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit styled Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation International; Cause No. 06-164; in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The suit was filed by two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc., employees in December 2006 and purports to have been brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI-affiliated employees who performed work for which they were not fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay was owed. The court has conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job positions for Alderwoods employees. Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA, failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract, violations of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. The company operates through two business segments: funeral and cemetery. SCI conducts both funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada, and funeral operations in Germany. SERVICE CORP: "Stickle" Wage and Hour Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit styled Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. 08-CV-83; in the U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix Division, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Counsel for plaintiffs filed this case on Jan. 17, 2008, against SCI and various related entities and individuals asserting FLSA and other ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to pay for overtime. In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job positions of SCI affiliated employees. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. The company operates through two business segments: funeral and cemetery. SCI conducts both funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada, and funeral operations in Germany. SERVICE CORP: Defends "Welch" Wage and Hour Lawsuit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International continues to defend a suit styled Shauna Welch v. California Cemetery & Funeral Services, LLC; Case No. BC 396793; in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In August 2008, the plaintiff filed a class action on behalf of employees of a subsidiary in California for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the Business & Professions Code. The plaintiff specifically alleges that she and the putative class are unable to negotiate their paychecks without paying a fee and/or without being subject to a waiting period since paychecks are issued from an out-of-state bank. Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. The company operates through two business segments: funeral and cemetery. SCI conducts both funeral and cemetery operations in the United States and Canada, and funeral operations in Germany. SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Accused, with State Farm, of Overcharging ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that South Broward Hospital District dba Memorial Healthcare System, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. made accident victims pay too much out of pocket, a class action claims in Broward County Court, Fort Lauderdale. A copy of the Complaint in Nicholson v. South Broward Hospital District, Case No. 09-67268 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th J. Cir., Broward Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/05/Insure.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Lynch, Esq. HUNTER, WILLIAMS & LYNCH, P.A. Gables Square, Suite 1150 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305-371-1404 - and - Gary M. Paige, Esq. John Ameen, Esq. PAIGE, TROP & AMEEN, P.A. 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 425 South Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: 954-981-7150 TOYS "R" US: Accused of Price-Fixing In E.D. Pa. Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that Babies "R" Us bullied its manufacturers to fix resale prices on "high- end" baby products, such as strollers, car seats, breast pumps and bedding, to "thwart" competition from Internet retailers, according to an antitrust class action in Philadelphia Federal Court. "As part of their agreement with [Babies "R" Us], the manufacturers ... demonstrated their compliance by threatening, intimidating, individually negotiating with, cajoling, exhorting and requiring that the retailers raise and maintain retail prices at the manufacturers' suggested retail price," the complaint states. But Babies R Us allegedly exempted itself from its own guidelines. The class claims consumers were forced to pay inflated prices due to Babies R Us's scheme. Babies "R" Us, a branch of Toys "R" Us, opened in 1996 with six stores, bought 76 baby superstores in 1997 and grew at an average rate of 15 stores per year between 1998 and 2009, the class claims. "A 2006 market research report called '[Babies "R" Us] the mightiest infant-specialty retailer on the planet,'" which gave it "great influence" over manufacturers, the class claims. It adds, "manufacturers could experience enormous sales growth simply by selling to" Babies "R" Us. But with profits threatened by Internet competitors, Babies "R" Us began pushing its manufacturers to set minimum price guidelines for its competitors, doggedly monitoring other retailers' product pricing, the class claims. The class says that Babies "R" Us would refuse to sell certain manufacturers' products or cancel orders if it discovered that other retailers were offering discounts. "Internet retailers of high-end baby and juvenile products are highly efficient competitors because, among other reasons, their operating expenses are low," the complaint states. But those retailers were often cut off by manufacturers in attempt to appease Babies "R" Us, the class claims. The class claims that manufacturers would close retailers' accounts, deny them credit or stop shipments if they continued to offer discounts. And it claims that manufacturers exempt Babies "R" Us from the pricing policies and guidelines that it has imposed on other retailers. The manufacturers bent over backward for Babies "R" Us, knowing they would suffer greatly if they lost the account, the complaint states. As a result, consumers were not offered competitive pricing for baby products and "paid more . . . than they would have without the restraints," the class claims. The lawsuit follows a similar class action in the same court against Toys "R" Us and "Babies "R" Us that was certified in July 2009 by U.S. District Judge Anita Brody. Toys "R" Us has also been sued by Internet retailers and is being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission, ABC News reported in October. The manufacturers named as co-defendants include Britax Child Safety, Kids Line, Maclaren USA, Medela, and Peg Perego USA. The class demands damages and an injunction for Sherman Antitrust Act violations and restraint of trade. A copy of the Complaint in Elliott, et al. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-06151 (E.D. Pa.) (Brody, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/04/ToysRUS.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market St., Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-496-0300 - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 60 West Randolph Street, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-762-9237 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. George W. Sampson, Esq. Ivy D. Arai, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Fifth Ave., Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-623-7292 - and - Mary Jane Fait, Esq. Theodore B. Bell, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 55 West Monroe St., Suite 1111 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-984-0000 - and - Ellen Meriwether, Esq. Michael S. Tarringer, Esq. CAFTERTY FAUCHER, LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-864-2800 - and - Ann D. White, Esq. ANN D. WHITE LAW OFFICES, P.C. One Pitcairn Place, Suite 2400 165 Township Line Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: 215-481-0274 - and - Stephen M. Sohmer, Esq. THE SOHMER LAW FIRM One Passaic Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: 973-227-7080 - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: 954-515-0123 - and - Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Robert J. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612-339-6900 - and - Patrick L. Rocco, Esq. SHALOV STONE & BONNER LLP 163 Madison Ave. P.O. Box 1277 Morristown, NJ 07962-1277 Telephone: 973-775-8997 - and - Ralph M. Stone, Esq. Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. SHALOV STONE & BONNER LLP 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1000 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: 212-239-4340 - and - Ronen Sarraf, Esq. Joseph Gentile, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1005 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: 212-868-3610 - and - Krishna B. Narine, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KRISHNA B. NARINE, P.C. 7839 Montgomery Avenue Elkins Park, PA 19027 Telephone: 215-782-3241 - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Frances E. Baillon, Esq. REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: 651-287-2100 - and - Lee Albert, Esq. MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP 275 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-682-1818 - and - Matthew Heffner, Esq. Matthew Hurst, Esq. SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST LLP Two First National Plaza 20 South Clark Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-346-3466 UNICREDIT SPA: Class Action Suit Contests Italian Bank's Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Armorel Kenna at Bloomberg News reports that Intesa Sanpaolo SpA and UniCredit SpA, Italy's two biggest banks, may face the country's first class-action lawsuit over overdraft fees charged by the lenders after new legislation went into late last month. Consumer group Codacons yesterday presented a complaint over Intesa Sanpaolo's fee to a court in Turin, and for UniCredit in Rome. The banks could face 6.25 billion euros ($9 billion) in claims if the almost 25 million Italians affected by the fees sign up for the suit, the group said on its Web site today. The 2003 bankruptcy of Parmalat Finanziaria SpA, which wiped out the savings of more than 100,000 Italian stock and bondholders, prompted the push for class-action legislation. The new law is only retroactive to August of last year, meaning investors in Parmalat won't be able to take advantage of the measure. Italian banks charged higher fees on loans and credit lines to make up for overdraft fees canceled by the government in July, the country's Antitrust Authority ruled on Dec. 29. The higher charges are in some instances 15 times more than the ones they replaced, Codacons said. Codacons invited account holders to register on its Web Site yesterday after presenting the lawsuit and said if the courts admit the case they will be able to claim compensation for damages. UniCredit is Italy's largest bank, followed by Intesa Sanpaolo. Both are based in Milan. UNITED STATES: Class Sought in S.D. Tex. Customs & Border Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jazmine Ulloa at The Brownsville Herald reports that immigration attorneys are seeking class-action status for a lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection that could have widespread implications along the U.S.-Mexico border. The issue involves U.S. citizens who say they were held for long hours at ports of entry in South Texas and denied entry into the country after they presented birth certificates registered by midwives. CBP officials are apparently referring U.S. citizens to further inspection if their documents show their births were attended by midwives in the United States, court records in the lawsuit state. Officers are accused of interrogating people for hours, on suspicion of holding fraudulent documents, and of threatening them to sign "confessions," which say they were falsely registered as born in Texas, according to court filings. Once those detained are declared inadmissible into the country, CBP officials confiscate all of their documents and return them to Mexico, immigration attorneys said. "Most people are totally unaware of this risk, which is why they fall into this trap," said: Elisabeth Lisa Brodyaga, Esq. 17891 Landrum Park Road San Benito, TX 78586 Telephone: 956-421-3226 one of the lead attorneys in Castro, et al. v. Freeman, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00208 (S.D. Tex.) (Tagle, J.). "We still do not know how often it is happening. The problem is that when it happens to someone they end up in Mexico, cut off from access to counsel." CBP officials are not at liberty to discuss any cases under litigation, CBP spokesman Eddie Perez said. But in general, the process at the port of entry can be cumbersome for officials, he said. "We try to cover every base. We want to make sure every person we process is clear to enter," Mr. Perez said. "Sometimes that process is long; sometimes it is short." The lawsuit follows a series of complications for people delivered by midwives in the Rio Grande Valley and along the Texas-Mexico border, the most recent of which came to light with the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, now in effect since June. The travel security measure requires all U.S. citizens to present passport books, passport cards or other initiative-compliant documents when crossing into the country from Mexico by land. But for years the U.S. Department of State had been arbitrarily rejecting hundreds of passport applications from people whose births were attended by midwives, citing a history of forgeries for Mexican-born children in South Texas dating back to the 1960s, immigration attorneys said. Immigration attorneys say they saw a steady stream of cases in which the department sent applicants in bureaucratic circles, asking them to provide all sorts of additional proof of their citizenship - from birth announcements to high school yearbook pictures. The problem finally incited a class-action lawsuit filed against the Department of State by the American Civil Liberties Union and immigration attorneys representing citizens denied passports. In a settlement agreement last year, the department agreed to instate new procedures and training for officers taking passport submissions. But while the settlement won victories for some applicants, many people's passport requests remain in limbo, said immigration attorney Jaime Diez, who is working on the case with Ms. Brodyaga. And now the contest over U.S. citizenship for those still waiting for passports is playing out at international bridges. For many born with the assistance of midwives, the same issues that have held back their applications with the Department of State are causing CBP officers to suspect they hold fraudulent documents, immigration attorneys said. "But these are issues that should be handled in a courtroom, not the port of entry, where people do not have access to counsel nor their constitutional rights," Mr. Diez said. At international bridges, people apply for entry into the United States and are not considered U.S. citizens. Thus, people do not have constitutional rights and are more vulnerable, attorneys said. Some who are still waiting for their passports and may face interrogation at ports of entry are those whose applications were denied outright by the Department of State because a convicted midwife issued their birth certificate. Since 1960, 75 Texas midwives have been convicted of falsely registering Mexican-born babies as U.S. citizens. Most of the women made declarations in court admitting they had committed fraud, but most of their clients were not notified of their statements in the past and are just now battling the allegations in court, Mr. Diez said. "The problem is determining which birth certificates are false and which are not," he said. "(Immigration officials) should not assume that every child these women delivered was born in Mexico." Others whose applications remain in question are U.S. citizens, mostly seniors, who have delayed birth certificates, or documents registered a few days after their births as was customary in the past. And those who might have the highest risk to confront obstacles at international bridges are U.S. citizens who were also registered for Mexican birth certificates by their parents, a common practice along the border for years, especially among families who wished to raise their children in Mexico. Trinidad Muraira de Castro, a litigant in the lawsuit against CBP, obtained such falsified Mexican birth certificates for her daughters, Laura Nancy and Yuliana Trinidad de Castro, seeking to enroll them in a Matamoros school, Brodyaga said. In statements, she and her daughters describe how CBP officers kept them for about 11 hours at the Brownsville and Matamoros International Bridge after Yuliana presented a birth certificate issued by a midwife and her passport application receipt - documents that fall under WHTI requirements and should enable her to cross. They were taken into rooms for individual questioning and harassed, the women write in their statements. Out of fear, Trinidad signed a false confession stating that her daughters were born in Matamoros, she wrote. "The instant case is not an isolated instance, but a window into the cases of dozens, if not hundreds, of similarly situated persons," immigration attorneys contend in court documents. The American Civil Liberties Union has not yet become involved with this case. For now, however, attorneys are advising passport applicants who have unsolved issues with the Department of State and have not received their documents to refrain from crossing. "This issue is tearing families apart," Mr. Diez said. "Unfortunately, I feel we are only seeing the beginnings of this problem." WALGREEN CO: Faces Second Amended Complaint in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- Walgreen Co. faces a second amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's Jan. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. On April 16, 2008, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension Fund filed a putative class action suit against the company and its former and current chief executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs amended the complaint on Oct. 16, 2008, which upon the company's motion the District Court dismissed on Sept. 24, 2009. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for the District Court to reconsider the dismissal and to allow plaintiffs leave to further amend the complaint. The District Court granted plaintiffs' motion on Nov. 11, 2009. The second amended complaint was then filed on behalf of purchasers of company common stock during the period between June 25, 2007 and Oct. 1, 2007. As in the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint charges the company and its former and current chief executive officers with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the company misled investors by failing to disclose (i) declining rates of growth in generic drug sales and (ii) increasing selling, general and administrative expenses in fourth quarter of 2007, which allegedly had a negative impact on earnings. Walgreen Co. -- http://www.walgreens.com/-- is engaged in retail drugstore business. As of August 31, 2009, the Company operated 7,496 locations in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. During the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009, the company opened or acquired 691 locations. Total locations do not include 337 convenient care clinics operated by Take Care Health Systems, Inc. within the company's drugstores. The company's drugstores are engaged in the retail sale of prescription and non-prescription drugs and general merchandise. General merchandise includes, among other things, household items, personal care, convenience foods, beauty care, photofinishing, candy, and seasonal items. Walgreens offers customers the choice to have prescriptions filled at the drugstore counter, as well as through the mail, by telephone and through the Internet. ********* 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 * * *