/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100114.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 9 Headlines AMERICAN MUTUAL: Multi-Billion Mutual Fund Fee Case is Dismissed BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Court Declines to Certify Nurses' Class BARNES & NOBLE: "Minor" Complaint Against Unit in Discovery BARNES & NOBLE: "Hostetter" Certification Hearing on January 20 BAYER CORP: 8th Cir. Declines to Certify W.Va. Plaintiff Class CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Luque" Labor Suit in Los Angeles CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defends "Giradin" Suit in San Diego CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Agreement in EEOC Suit Ongoing CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Enters Discussions to Settle Two Suits CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending CYNOSURE INC: No Ruling Yet on Plaintiffs' Certification Motion GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Investor Class Action Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y. H&R BLOCK: Settles Nationwide IRA Lawsuit for $20.2 Million INTEGRYS ENERGY: PEC Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Illinois MICROSOFT CORP: New Italian Law Sparks Lawsuit in Florence MOODY INTERNATIONAL: Overtime Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Tex. MPS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Adecco Merger Class Action Lawsuits ONEOK PARTNERS: Ruling on Plaintiffs' Certification Plea Pending PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business QUALCOMM INC: Court Dismisses Amended CDMA Purchasers' Suit SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settles Carlines Class Action for $165 Million STONE ENERGY: New Motion for Class Certification Still Pending TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Kahn Suit in Michigan Remains Pending TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Mediation in Lawnmower Suits Still Ongoing WESTPORT NATIONAL: Individuals Pursue Madoff Claims Individually ********* AMERICAN MUTUAL: Multi-Billion Mutual Fund Fee Case is Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- RiskMetricks.com's Securities Litigation Watch blog reports that the case pending against Capital Research and Management Company and American Funds Distributors, Inc., alleged that the advisory and 12b-1 (or distribution) fees which defendants received from the mutual funds they advised, and their investors, were excessive. In a 108-page ruling issued on Dec. 28, 2009, in In re American Mutual Funds Fee Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-05593 (C.D. Calif.), after a bench trial this past summer, the Honorable Gary Feess found that "Plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of proving that CRMC charged fees that were 'so disproportionately large that [they bore] no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's-length bargaining'" - the so-called Gartenberg standard. A copy of Judge Feess' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is available at http://slw.riskmetrics.com/American_Funds_Opinion.pdf An article covering this ruling is available from the American Lawyer at: http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestFriendlyTAL.jsp?id=1202437645873 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy represents the defendants and Milberg and Weiss & Lurie are lead counsel for the plaintiffs. BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Court Declines to Certify Nurses' Class --------------------------------------------------------- Tom Wilemon at The Daily News reports that a last-ditch attempt to gain class-action status in Clarke, et al. v. Baptist Memorial HealthCase Corp., et al., Case No. 06-cv-02377 (W.D. Tenn.) (Mays, J.) -- a lawsuit alleging that Memphis hospitals conspired to suppress nurse wages -- has failed. U.S. District Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr., denied a motion to allow a substitute plaintiff. He issued the order last week after ruling in September that the two originally named plaintiffs did not adequately represent nurses in the Memphis area. One of those plaintiffs, Suzanne C. Clarke, had worked for Nurse Alliance, an advocacy group affiliated with Service Employees International Union. The other, Conise P. Dillard, had filed for bankruptcy. Mays in his order stated that the lawyers suing the hospitals failed to meet deadlines for adding another plaintiff even as questions arose about the suitability of the two named plaintiffs. "Maintaining a viable class representative should have been a first priority," Mays wrote. "Here it was not." Dropped the ball Clarke and Dillard alleged that Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare and Baptist Memorial Hospital, along with other hospitals in Memphis not specifically named in the complaint, regularly exchanged non-public information about wages and suppressed competition for nurses. The women filed the suit in 2006. Their lawyers later asked the court to make the case a class action - upping the stakes in the legal dispute. The lawyers suing the hospitals sought to add another nurse, Anna Bachelder, as a plaintiff after the judge denied the petition for class certification. Thousands of registered nurses could have benefitted from a class-action suit, but Memphis hospitals could have lost millions if it was successful. "This suit is no longer a proposed class action," Mays stated in his order. "It is now a suit by two parties seeking redress for their individual claims." Representatives of the two hospitals said the order is an important victory. "Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare is pleased that Judge Mays denied the motion for intervention of a new class representative," said David Jacqua of Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada PLLC, the local law firm representing Methodist. "It has been and continues to be our position that the lawsuit was without merit." Ayoka Pond, a spokeswoman for Baptist, said her hospital also contends the lawsuit is without merit. Baptist actively competes for nurses, she said. "We offer a competitive salary and benefits structure for all our employees because we highly value them and their contributions to our mission of healing, preaching and teaching," Pond said. "We use industry-standard, legal practices to determine fair, competitive compensation packages. Also, Baptist actively recruits and attracts nurses from across our region because we want the very best staff to continue to provide high-quality, compassionate care for our patients." Besides noting the passage of court deadlines for adding an additional plaintiff, Mays in his order stated that lawyers suing the hospitals were seeking to "relitigate the issue of class certification with the benefit of hindsight." The law firm of the lead attorney for the plaintiff, Daniel A. Small of Washington, D.C., has filed similar suits against hospitals in Chicago, Detroit, San Antonio and Albany, N.Y. Small did not return a phone call to The Daily News before press time. The firms representing the nurses are Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC with offices in D.C. and New York; James & Hoffman of D.C.; Cohen Gilbert & Laduca of D.C.; The Furth Firm LLP of San Francisco; Apperson, Crump & Maxwell PLC of Memphis; Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman of Philadelphia; Keller Rohrback LLP of Seattle; and Gustafson Gluek PLLC of Minneapolis. Methodist is represented by Butler Snow's Memphis office and Hogan & Hartson LLP of D.C. Baptist is represented by Harris Shelton Dunlap Cobb & Ryder of Memphis and Jones Day of D.C. BARNES & NOBLE: "Minor" Complaint Against Unit in Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- Discovery concerning purported class member payroll checks and related information in a purported class-action complaint entitled, "Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.," has commenced, according to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California alleging wage payments by instruments in a form that did not comply with the requirements of the California Labor Code, allegedly resulting in impermissible wage payment reductions and calling for imposition of statutory penalties. The complaint also seeks restitution of such allegedly unpaid wages under California's unfair competition law, and an injunction compelling compliance with the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges two subclasses of 500 and 200 employees, respectively (there may be overlap among the subclasses), but contains no allegations concerning the number of alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class. On June 3, 2009, Barnes & Noble Booksellers filed an answer denying all claims. Barnes & Noble, Inc. -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/-- is a bookseller. The company's principal business is the sale of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles, excluding educational textbooks and specialized religious titles), mass-market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science fiction and other fiction), children's books, bargain books, magazines, gift, cafe products and services, music and movies direct to customers. As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 778 bookstores and a Website. Of the 778 bookstores, 726 operate under the Barnes & Noble Booksellers trade name and 52 operate primarily under the B. Dalton Bookseller trade name. BARNES & NOBLE: "Hostetter" Certification Hearing on January 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- The hearing on the plaintiffs' class certification motion in the complaint entitled, "Hostetter v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.," is scheduled for Jan. 20, 2010, according to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s Dec. 10, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2009. On Dec. 4, 2008, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making these allegations against defendants with respect to hourly managers and/or assistant managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; and (4) unfair competition. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf the purported class. On March 4, 2009, Barnes and Noble filed an answer denying all claims. On March 5, 2009, Barnes and Noble removed this matter to federal court. Written discovery concerning purported class member wages, hours worked, and other matters has commenced. The plaintiffs' class certification motion was filed on Oct. 19, 2009. The company's response was filed on Nov. 30, 2009, and the hearing on the class certification motion is scheduled for Jan. 20, 2010. The Court has set a trial date of Aug. 10, 2010. Barnes & Noble, Inc. -- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/-- is a bookseller. The company's principal business is the sale of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles, excluding educational textbooks and specialized religious titles), mass-market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science fiction and other fiction), children's books, bargain books, magazines, gift, cafe products and services, music and movies direct to customers. As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 778 bookstores and a Website. Of the 778 bookstores, 726 operate under the Barnes & Noble Booksellers trade name and 52 operate primarily under the B. Dalton Bookseller trade name. BAYER CORP: 8th Cir. Declines to Certify W.Va. Plaintiff Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien at LegalNewsline.com reports that a three-judge panel of federal appellate judges will not allow a class action against Bayer Corp. to proceed in a state court in West Virginia. After a federal court in Minnesota had denied certification of a West Virginia class led by George McCollins in a multi-district litigation proceeding in 2008, a pair of West Virginians filed a state court action that Bayer wanted stopped. The Minnesota federal court granted the injunction, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed Tuesday. The lawsuits involve Bayer's prescription cholesterol lowering medication Baycol, which was taken off the market in 2001 after being linked to 31 deaths. "Bayer has demonstrated success on the merits by showing that respondents cannot relitigate the legal conclusions in the McCollins order," the opinion says. "Respondents argue that because their individual claims for damages are so small, as a practical matter they cannot litigate them without class status. They have no absolute right to litigate their claims as a class, however, only a right, preserved by the district court's narrowly tailored injunction, to litigate their own claims." The issue started in 2001 when McCollins and two other West Virginians filed a class action in Cabell County Circuit Court. The case was removed to the MDL court, and by 2008 McCollins was the only member remaining from West Virginia. "He had not experienced the side effect that led to Baycol's withdrawal from the market; undisputed record evidence showed that he had physically benefitted from the drug," the opinion says. "Rather than suing for physical damages, he sought refunds for economic loss caused by the defendants' breach of warranties and violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act." A class seeking a nationwide refund was denied certification, as the court determined that plaintiffs must show that they suffered an injury or no benefit from the drug. McCollins' class was also denied certification. "Holding that under the WVCCPA, McCollins would need to 'demonstrate Baycol was something other than what he bargained for' and that McCollins could not meet this burden since Baycol in fact lowered his cholesterol and resulted in no side effects, the court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on his individual claims," the opinion says. Kevin Smith and Shirley Sperlazza sought to certify a class in West Virginia, but Bayer asked the federal court to enjoin them from doing so. Bayer called them "absent putative class members" from McCollins' proposed class. "(T)he district court concluded that Baycol plaintiffs cannot state a claim under the WVCCPA without proof of harm or injury," the opinion says. "Economic loss alone is insufficient. Certification under the state rule would undermine this conclusion of substantive state law properly made by the district court." Judges Duane Benton, Lavenski Smith and Diana Murphy decided the case. Additional coverage about the Eight Circuit's ruling is available from Jon Hood at ComsumerAffairs.com at: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/01/lawsuits_refiled.html CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Luque" Labor Suit in Los Angeles ----------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Inc. faces a class action lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay proper vacation wages to hourly restaurants at termination, 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. 29, 2009. On Aug. 5, 2009, two former hourly restaurant employees in the State of California filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court styled Luque v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. BC415640, against the company alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure to pay proper vacation wages at termination, failure to furnish wage statements, and violations of the California Business and Professions Code, among others claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the respective plaintiffs and other purported class members. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees for themselves. The Cheesecake Factory Inc. -- http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale, full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California. The company also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors. In addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice operator. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defends "Giradin" Suit in San Diego ------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Inc. is defending a lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay proper wages, 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. 29, 2009. On Jan. 20, 2009, one former hourly restaurant employee in the State of California filed a lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court styled Giradin v. The Cheesecake Factory, Inc.; Case No. 37-2009-00081696-CU-OE-CTL, against the company alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure to pay proper wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements and violations of the California reporting time laws, among others claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the respective plaintiff and other purported class members. The plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees. The Cheesecake Factory Inc. -- http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale, full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California. The company also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors. In addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice operator. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Agreement in EEOC Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a suit against The Cheesecake Factory Inc. alleging that the company engaged in unlawful employment practices are executing final documentation of an agreement to settle all claims, 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. 29, 2009. On June 30, 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the Phoenix District Office filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona stylized as Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. The Cheesecake Factory, Inc. The complaint (No. CV08-1207-PHX-NVW) alleges that since November 2004, the company engaged in unlawful employment practices by permitting a class of male employees, including three named former employees, to be sexually harassed by male co-workers, creating a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint also alleges, among other claims, that the company knew or should have known of the alleged sexual harassment and failed to act reasonably to prevent or correct such alleged sexual harassment. The complaint in Case No.CV08-1207-PHX-NVW seeks injunctive relief and monetary compensation, including for emotional pain and suffering, among other damages. The company filed its answer to the complaint on Dec. 24, 2008. Two of the purported class members are subject to binding arbitration with respect to a portion of the claims arising in Case No. CV08-1207-PHX-NVW. The parties have agreed to a full settlement of all claims of all parties in this matter, which has resulted in a dismissal, with prejudice, of such arbitration proceedings. The parties are currently executing final documentation of settlement. The company has reserved $345,000 for estimated settlement costs in this matter. The Cheesecake Factory Inc. -- http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale, full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California. The company also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors. In addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice operator. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Enters Discussions to Settle Two Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Inc. has entered into discussions to settle two suits filed by former hourly restaurant employees, 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. 29, 2009. On Jan. 9, 2007, two former hourly restaurant employees in the State of California filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the company alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws with respect to alleged failure to pay proper wages, improper payroll deductions, and violations of the California meal and break period laws, among others claims. The suit is styled Guardado v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. BC360426. This case was previously stayed by the parties through December 2008, pending the California Supreme Court's decision to review Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (No. S166350, 2008). Subsequently, the parties entered into mediation proceedings that, as of Nov. 5, 2009, have not been successful. On Feb. 23, 2009, an additional lawsuit with similar allegations was filed by another hourly restaurant employee in Santa Clara County Superior Court and styled Benitez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No. 109CV135687. In April, 2009, the company gave notice to the respective courts in Case No. 109CV135687 and Case No. BC360426 that such cases may be related matters. The parties have resumed discovery and will continue settlement discussions as part of ongoing mediation efforts in Case No. BC360426, and have commenced preliminary settlement discussions in Case No. 109CV135687. These lawsuits seek unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the respective plaintiffs and other purported class members. The respective plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees for themselves. The Cheesecake Factory Inc. -- http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale, full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California. The company also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors. In addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice operator. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending -------------------------------------------------------- A motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit against The Cheesecake Factory Inc. remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 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. 29, 2009. On Aug. 29, 2006, five present and former hourly restaurant employees in the States of Tennessee, Texas and Arizona filed a lawsuit against the company alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to alleged minimum wage violations, improper payroll deductions and requiring work "off the clock," among other claims. The suit is styled Smith v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. 3-06-0829. The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported class members. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees for themselves. A motion to compel arbitration is currently pending in front of the court. The Cheesecake Factory Inc. -- http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/-- operates 160 upscale, full-service casual dining restaurants, 146 under The Cheesecake Factory mark in 34 states and the District of Columbia, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe mark in nine states, and one unit of its concept, RockSugar Pan Asian Kitchena in California. The company also operates two bakery production facilities in Calabasas Hills, California and Rocky Mount, North Carolina that produce baked desserts and other products for its restaurants and for other foodservice operators, retailers and distributors. In addition, the company licensed two bakery cafes under The Cheesecake Factory Bakery Cafe mark to another foodservice operator. CYNOSURE INC: No Ruling Yet on Plaintiffs' Certification Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County has yet to rule on the plaintiff's class certification motion in a suit against Cynosure, 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. In May 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against the company under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or the TCPA in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees. The complaint alleges that the company violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients. Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful violations. Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately three million facsimiles were sent on the behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals. On February 6, 2008, several months after the close of discovery, the plaintiff served a motion for class certification, which the company opposed on numerous factual and legal grounds, including: -- that a nationwide class action may not be maintained in a Massachusetts state court by Dr. Weitzner, a New York resident; -- individual issues predominate over common issues; -- a class action is not superior to other methods of resolving TCPA claims; and -- Dr. Weitzner is an inadequate class representative. The company believes that it has many merits defenses, including that the faxes in question do not constitute "advertising" within the meaning of the TCPA and many recipients had an established business relationship with the company and are thereby deemed to have consented to the receipt of facsimile communications. The Court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class certification motion on June 17, 2008. No decision on the motion has been rendered. Cynosure, Inc. -- http://www.cynosure.com/-- develops and markets aesthetic treatment systems that are used by physicians and other practitioners to perform non-invasive procedures to remove hair, treat vascular lesions, rejuvenate skin through the treatment of shallow vascular lesions and pigmented lesions, as well as multi-colored tattoos, temporarily reduce the appearance of cellulite, treat wrinkles, skin texture, skin discoloration and skin tightening, and to perform minimally invasive procedures for LaserBodySculpting for the removal of unwanted fat. Its systems incorporate a range of laser and other light-based energy sources, including Alexandrite, pulse dye, Nd:Yag and diode lasers, as well as intense pulsed light. Cynosure sells 18 different aesthetic treatment systems. Its flagship products are the Apogee Elite system; the Cynergy system; the TriActive LaserDermology system; the Affirm and Affirm carbon dioxide (CO2) systems, Smartlipo and Smartlipo MPX systems, and the Accolade system. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Investor Class Action Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. (formerly Genworth Financial Asset Management), Genworth Financial, Inc. and an executive officer was commenced by Leeds Morelli & Brown, P.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who invested in GFAM's BJ Group Services Portfolios between December 22, 2003, and December 22, 2009. The complaint in Goodman, et al. v. Genworth Finanical Wealth Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-05603 (E.D.N.Y.) (Lindsay, J.), charges Genworth and Gurinder S. Ahluwalia with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the fraudulent scheme was perpetrated by Defendants through Genworth's marketing, solicitation, sale and management of the Portfolio. The scheme was facilitated by Defendants, who knowingly, recklessly and/or with intent to deceive disseminated to prospective and current investors materially misleading representations regarding the Portfolio and its "exclusive" management agreement with Robert "Bob" Brinker. As alleged in the complaint, at times during the Class Period, nearly 65% of the Portfolio was invested in funds not being recommended by Brinker but rather in funds that paid Defendants higher administrative and service fees. The complaint further alleges various breaches of fiduciary duties by the Defendants. This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who invested in Genworth BJ Group Services Portfolios. Plaintiff is represented by Leeds, Morelli & Brown P.C., a law firm possessing experience in prosecuting class actions on behalf of victims in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C. has been responsible for collectively recovering millions of dollars on behalf of class members in prior actions. If you invested in Genworth's BJ Group Services Portfolios during the Class Period, you may move the court no later than March 8, 2010, to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class. In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. You do not need to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. If you want to obtain a copy of the complaint or want more information about Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C. or this action, or if you want to obtain a Certification form to serve as a lead plaintiff, please visit www.lmblaw.com and contact Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. by calling the firm at 1-800-585-4658. If you wish to receive an investor package or if you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this matter, or if you have any information you wish to provide to us, please contact: Jeffrey K. Brown Esq. Lenard Leeds, Esq. Matthew Ian Marks, Esq. Rick Ostrove, Esq. LEEDS, MORELLI & BROWN, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (800) 585-4658 E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com - and - James E. Tullman, Esq. Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq. WEISS & LURIE 551 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10176 Telephone: 212-682-3025 H&R BLOCK: Settles Nationwide IRA Lawsuit for $20.2 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that H&R Block Inc will pay as much as $20.2 million to settle a New York lawsuit accusing it of fraudulently marketing retirement accounts that caused hundreds of thousands of mostly lower-income clients to lose money. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the accord calls for the largest U.S. tax preparer to refund $11.4 million to $19.4 million of fees to customers nationwide who opened one of its Express IRAs, a type of individual retirement account. H&R Block will also pay $750,000 in fines and other costs to the state, and convert Express IRAs into new retirement accounts that do not charge fees, Cuomo said. The size of the refund depends on the number of claims made, he said. The attorney general said H&R Block has also settled private class-action lawsuits based on the same allegations, and which are pending in the federal court in Kansas City, Missouri, where the company is based. New York had accused H&R Block of steering more than 600,000 customers to Express IRAs, without disclosing hidden fees that wiped out the interest that 85 percent of them could earn. Eliot Spitzer, Cuomo's predecessor, had first sued H&R Block over the marketing of Express IRAs in March 2006. "H&R Block's aggressive peddling of fee-laden retirement accounts that were virtually guaranteed to lose money needlessly cost families across the country millions of their hard-earned dollars," Cuomo said in a statement on Monday. Gene King, an H&R Block spokesman, called the New York settlement "satisfactory for all parties." He had no immediate comment on the class-action settlement. Details of that accord were not immediately available. Lawyers for the class-action plaintiffs did not immediately return calls seeking comment. other remedies. His lawsuit had said the median Express IRA account had a $323 balance, too low for investors to offset such charges as $10 annual maintenance fees, $15 set-up fees, $15 "re- contribution" fees and $25 termination fees. Among the defendants in the New York case was H&R Block Financial Advisors Inc, which the company sold in 2008 to Ameriprise Financial Inc. Ameriprise did not immediately return a call seeking comment. The case is New York v. H&R Block Inc, New York State Supreme Court, No. 401110/2006. INTEGRYS ENERGY: PEC Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Integrys Energy Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Peoples Energy Corp., continues to defend a purported class action suit alleging violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 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 February 2004, a purported class action suit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court against Peoples Energy Corporation, The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, and North Shore Gas Company by customers of PGL and NSG, alleging among other things, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to matters at issue in the utilities' fiscal year 2001 Gas Charge reconciliation proceedings. In the suit, styled Alport et al. v. Peoples Energy Corporation, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement and punitive damages. PGL and NSG have been dismissed as defendants and the only remaining counts of the suit allege violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by PEC and that PEC acted in concert with others to commit a tortious act. PEC denies the allegations and is vigorously defending the suit. On July 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and PEC responded in opposition of this motion. On Oct. 20, 2009, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Integrys Energy Group, Inc. -- http://www.integrysgroup.com/-- is a diversified holding company with regulated utility operations operating through six wholly owned subsidiaries, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, North Shore Gas Company, Upper Peninsula Power Company, Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation, and Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation; nonregulated operations serving competitive energy markets through its wholly owned nonregulated subsidiary, Integrys Energy Services; and also a 34% equity ownership interest in American Transmission Company LLC (an electric transmission company operating in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois). MICROSOFT CORP: New Italian Law Sparks Lawsuit in Florence ---------------------------------------------------------- Silvia Ognibene and Sara Rossi at Reuters reports that the Aduc consumer defense association would present its case at a court in Florence. The move against Microsoft, the world's biggest software company, comes after a law took effect allowing consumer associations to file suit for groups of consumers. "Individual cases affect a limited number of users," Aduc Chairman Vincenzo Donvito told Reuters. "Therefore, as there is a large number of users involved, and with the importance of the free market issue, we have decided to take a collective legal action against Microsoft." Italian law provides for compensation for costs and not punitive damages. Microsoft was not available to comment. Aduc has won a pilot case in a Florence court on reimbursement of the cost of Windows for consumers who had to buy it pre-installed on computers. MOODY INTERNATIONAL: Overtime Lawsuit Filed in E.D. Tex. -------------------------------------------------------- Several technical services workers have filed a federal lawsuit against The Woodlands, Texas-based Moody International Americas, Inc., over claims that the company required them to work in excess of 40 hours each week without paying overtime compensation as required by federal law. Dallas attorney Charles W. "Trey" Branham III of the Law Offices of Charles W. Branham, III, L.P. filed the Fair Labor Standards Act class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Lufkin on behalf of current and former Moody International employees John Williams, Herbert "Jay" Fontenot and Tye Adair. Mr. Williams, of Lubbock, Texas, works for Moody International as a pipeline inspector. His pay records show he often works 100 or more hours each week including one week when he worked 160 hours. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act mandates that employers pay overtime to non-exempt hourly employees who work more than 40 hours per week at a rate equal to one-and-a-half times their regular straight-time pay rate. Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Adair worked as inspectors and technicians for the company, and have asserted similar claims. Moody International is a subsidiary of UK-based Moody International Limited, which provides services to companies in oil and gas, power, mining and other industries. "I'm concerned that what happened to John and the others in this case happened to other Moody International employees as well," Mr. Branham says. "With thousands of technical workers in the U.S., it could be that these three are just the tip of the iceberg." Mr. Branham says Moody International's own employee handbook may become a key piece of evidence, including statements about the payment of overtime that may run counter to federal law. The Law Offices of Charles W. Branham, III, L.P. is a Dallas- based trial law firm representing businesses and individuals in cases involving intellectual property, contract disputes, labor disputes, securities law and personal injury. More information is available at http://www.branhamlegal.com/ For more information on the unpaid overtime case against Moody International or to speak with Mr. Branham, please contact Mark Annick at 800-559-4534 or mark@androvett.com MPS GROUP: Agrees to Settle Adecco Merger Class Action Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- MPS Group, Inc. (NYSE:MPS), a leading provider of specialty staffing, consulting and business solutions, and 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., and Jaguar Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Adecco. 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. This additional information, which should be read in conjunction with the proxy statement, is set forth in a current report on Form 8-K that MPS Group has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). In return for the additional disclosures contained in the current report on Form 8-K, 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 -- 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. ONEOK PARTNERS: Ruling on Plaintiffs' Certification Plea Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The ruling of the 26th Judicial District, District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on the denial of class certification remains pending, according to ONEOK Partners, L.P.'s Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Price I Litigation ONEOK and its division, Oklahoma Natural Gas, the company's subsidiaries Mid-Continent Market Center, L.L.C., ONEOK Field Services Company, L.L.C., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.L.C. and ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP, successor to Koch Hydrocarbon Company), as well as approximately 225 other defendants, are defending against a lawsuit claiming underpayment of gas purchase proceeds. The suit is styled Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al. (f/k/a Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.), Case No. 99C30. The plaintiffs initially asserted that the defendants understated both the volume and the heating content of the purchased gas, and sought class certification for gas producers and royalty owners throughout the United States. The Court refused to certify the class that resulted in the plaintiffs amending their petition to limit the purported class to gas producers and royalty owners in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming, and limiting the claim to undermeasurement of volume. Price II Litigation Twenty one groups of defendants, including ONEOK and its division, Oklahoma Natural Gas, the company's subsidiaries Mid- Continent Market Center, L.L.C., ONEOK Field Services Company, L.L.C., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.L.C. and ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP, successor to Koch Hydrocarbon Company), are defending against a lawsuit claiming underpayment of gas producers and royalty owners by allegedly understating the heating content of purchased gas in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. The suit is styled Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al., Case No. 03C232. This action was filed by the plaintiffs after the Court denied the initial motion for class status in Price I. Price II was consolidated with Price I to determine whether either or both cases may properly be certified. Oral arguments on the plaintiffs' motion to certify this suit as a class action were conducted on April 1, 2005. On Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification, which, in effect, limited the named plaintiffs to pursuing individual claims against only those defendants who purchased or measured their gas. On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of class certification. Briefing, oral arguments and a ruling by the Court on this motion are pending. ONEOK Partners, L.P. -- http://www.oneok.com/-- is engaged in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the United States. In addition, the company owns premier natural gas liquids systems, connecting natural gas liquid (NGL) supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. The company operates through four business segments: Natural Gas Gathering and Processing segment primarily gathers and processes unprocessed natural gas; Natural Gas Pipelines segment primarily owns and operates regulated interstate and intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines and natural gas storage facilities; Natural Gas Liquids Gathering and Fractionation segment primarily gathers, treats and fractionates NGLs and stores and markets NGL products, and Natural Gas Liquids Pipelines segment primarily owns and operates Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-regulated interstate natural gas liquids gathering and distribution pipelines. PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business -------------------------------------------------------------- Purpose Financial Holdings, Inc. continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit over the conduct of its "payday lending" business, according to the company's Jan. 4, 2010, Form 10-12B filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit entitled Knox, et al., vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5 CV 0445, filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, on Feb. 8, 2005. The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-called "payday lending" business, certain of the company's Retail Micro-Loans segment subsidiaries violated various laws governing consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan brokering. The plaintiffs further allege that CompuCredit Corporation is the alter ego of the company's subsidiaries and is liable for their actions. The plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class member, and attorney's fees. The company says that the claims are similar to those that have been asserted against several other market participants in transactions involving small balance, short-term loans made to consumers in North Carolina. Purpose Financial Holdings, Inc. is wholly owned subsidiary of CompuCredit Holdings Corp. Following the spin-off, the company will be an independent publicly traded company, providing micro- loan products and services to individuals in the U.S. and United Kingdom markets via retail storefront locations and the Internet. QUALCOMM INC: Court Dismisses Amended CDMA Purchasers' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego has dismissed an amended purported class action complaint against QUALCOMM, Inc., for lack of standing, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2009. In November 2008, a complaint was filed in San Diego Federal Court on behalf of a purported class of individuals who purchased CDMA devices or service, seeking damages and injunctive relief under federal or state antitrust and unfair competition laws and common law as a result of the company's licensing practices. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on March 3, 2009, the court granted that request. On April 2, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint re- asserting some, but not all, of the claims in its original complaint. On August 10, 2009, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of standing. However, the court may reopen the case in the event an appeals court reverses a decision in an unrelated case involving different parties but raising a similar standing issue. QUALCOMM, Inc. -- http://www.qualcomm.com/-- designs, manufactures, and markets digital wireless telecommunications products and services based on its code division multiple access technology and other technologies. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Settles Carlines Class Action for $165 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that a $165 million settlement has been approved by a US District judge in the investor class action brought against Schering Plough. The suit alleged that the pharmaceutical company made fraudulent statements to investors about its allergy medicine, Clarinex. Specifically, the suit alleged that between May 2000 and February 2001 Schering-Plough made false statements that did not adequately disclose "serious and widespread deficiencies" in its quality and manufacturing operations. This, in turn, risked delay of FDA approval of Clarinex, a successor drug to Claritin. Then, on February 15, 2001, the FDA cited manufacturing deficiencies at Schering-Plough's Puerto Rico and New Jersey facilities, and subsequently withheld approval of Clarinex. The following day the company's shares fell 15 percent. According to media reports, as many as 280,000 investors could be affected by the settlement. The lawsuit has been underway for seven years. Legal fees of $37.95 million were also approved as part of the settlement. STONE ENERGY: New Motion for Class Certification Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A new motion for class certification in a consolidated complaint against Stone Energy Corp. remains pending, 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 consolidated putative class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against Stone, David Welch, Kenneth Beer, D. Peter Canty and James Prince purporting to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The consolidated complaint alleges a putative class period to commence on May 2, 2001 and to end on March 10, 2006 and contends that, during the putative class period, defendants, among other things, misstated or failed to disclose: (i) that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial results by overvaluing its oil reserves through improper and aggressive reserve methodologies; (ii) that the company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash flows were materially overstated at all relevant times. On Oct. 1, 2007, the Federal Court ordered that: (i) the claims asserted against defendants Kenneth Beer and James Prince pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) claims asserted on behalf of putative class members who sold their Company shares prior to October 6, 2005 be dismissed. The remaining claims are still pending. On or about May 12, 2008, then Lead Plaintiff El Paso Fireman & Policeman's Pension Fund filed a motion to certify the Securities Action as a class action. Defendants filed an opposition to the Class Certification Motion on June 27, 2008. Defendants also filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and a related Motion to Amend Answer to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or about June 11, 2008. In a memorandum ruling filed on Feb. 27, 2009, the Court held that El Paso Fireman & Policeman's Pension Fund did not have capacity to sue or be sued and dismissed it from the lawsuit. Subsequently, the Court denied the Class Certification Motion as moot. El Paso Fireman & Policeman's Pension Fund is appealing its dismissal. On Sept. 30, 2009, the City of Knoxville Employees' Pension Board was appointed as the new lead plaintiff. On Oct. 30, 2009, the City of Knoxville Employees' Pension Board filed a new motion for class certification. Stone Energy Corp. -- http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the acquisition and subsequent exploration, development, and operation of oil and gas properties located primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. The company also has operations in the Appalachia region. On August 28, 2008, the Company completed the acquisition of Bois d'Arc Energy, Inc. As of Feb. 23, 2009, it has secured leasehold interests in approximately 24,000 net acres and has two wells which are on production. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Kahn Suit in Michigan Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit against Tecumseh Products Co. is still pending as the plaintiffs continues to seek reimbursement of attorney fees and costs, 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. 10, 2008, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed by Alan Kahn in Lenawee County, Michigan against five of Tecumseh's directors, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant directors and seeking injunctive relief and damages for the company's proposed recapitalization plan. The injunctive relief sought in the suit was granted in the Herrick Foundation lawsuit, and the circuit court consolidated the two cases. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Feb. 20, 2009. Mr. Kahn's attorneys have acknowledged that this claim, like the Herrick Foundation litigation, is moot based upon the results of the company's annual meeting of shareholders. However, the plaintiffs have not yet dismissed the complaint because they are seeking reimbursement of attorney fees and costs. Tecumseh Products Co. -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is an independent, global manufacturer of hermetically sealed compressors for residential and commercial refrigerators, freezers, water coolers, dehumidifiers, window air conditioning units and residential and commercial central system air conditioners and heat pumps. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Mediation in Lawnmower Suits Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Mediation in a class action suit against Tecumseh Products Co. remains ongoing, 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 nationwide class-action lawsuit filed against the company and other defendants alleging that the horsepower labels on the products the plaintiffs purchased, which included products manufactured by the company's former Engine & Power Train business, were inaccurate. The suit is Ronnie Phillips et al v. Sears Roebuck Corporation et al., No. 04-L-334 (20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, IL). The plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all persons in the United States who, beginning Jan. 1, 1995 through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two stroke or four stroke gas combustible engine up to 20 horsepower that was manufactured by defendants. On March 30, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on May 8, 2008 the Court issued an opinion that: (i) dismissed all the claims made under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act with prejudice; (ii) dismissed all claims of the 93 non-Illinois plaintiffs with instructions to re-file amended claims in individual state courts; and (iii) ordered that any amended complaint for the three Illinois plaintiffs be re-filed by May 30, 2008. Since that time, eleven plaintiff's firms have filed 64 class action matters in 48 states and the District of Columbia, asserting claims on behalf of consumers in each of those jurisdictions with respect to lawnmower purchases from Jan. 1, 1994 to the present. The company has joined the joint defense group with other lawnmower and component manufacturers who are defendants. Fact gathering is underway but discovery has not yet commenced. Mediation in the case began in May of 2009. The parties have made reasonable progress in settlement discussions, but certain key terms among the parties remain unresolved. Tecumseh Products Co. -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is an independent, global manufacturer of hermetically sealed compressors for residential and commercial refrigerators, freezers, water coolers, dehumidifiers, window air conditioning units and residential and commercial central system air conditioners and heat pumps. WESTPORT NATIONAL: Individuals Pursue Madoff Claims Individually ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Redding Pilot reports that a federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit may proceed against Connecticut Community Bank, the parent corporation of Westport National Bank, to recover depositors' retirement funds in a Westport National Bank account managed by Bernard Madoff. Backus v. Connecticut Community Bank, Case No. 09-cv-01256 (D. Conn.) (Dorsey, J.), was brought by 26 retirement plans and IRA owners who had retirement fund accounts at Westport National Bank. The bank had more than 200 separate IRA and retirement fund depositors, with more than $60 million being managed by Madoff as of December 2008, when Madoff's Ponzi scheme was exposed. All of the depositors lost their retirement funds. In a ruling issued in federal court in New Haven late last month, U.S. District Court Judge Peter C. Dorsey denied the bank's motion to dismiss the action. The Backus plaintiffs had sought permission to proceed as a class action on behalf of all Westport National Bank depositors who placed their money with Madoff, according to a press release. Although Judge Dorsey denied the bank's motion to dismiss, he ruled that the case cannot proceed as a class action and that each individual Westport National Bank depositor must bring a separate claim. David Golub of the Stamford law firm of Silver Golub & Teitell, who is lead counsel for the 26 Backus plaintiffs and another 30 individual IRA owners and retirement plans who deposited money with the bank, noted the ruling had a significant impact on the rights of the Westport National Bank depositors who have not yet brought an action against the bank. "It is important that individuals and retirement plans that lost money at Westport National Bank understand that the judge's ruling requires that each individual and retirement fund trustee bring an individual action or join in an existing action to recover their money," he said. Mr. Golub said depositors outside Connecticut are also affected by this ruling, including those living in Massachusetts, Florida, California, and Maryland. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Golub, Esq. Jonathan M. Levine, Esq. Craig Yankwitt, Esq. SILVER, GOLUB & TEITELL 184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389 Stamford, CT 06904 Telephone: 203-325-4491 - and - J. Daniel Sagarin, Esq. Andrew W. Skolnick, Esq. David A. Slossberg, Esq. HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC 147 North Broad St., PO Box 112 Milford, CT 06460-0112 Telephone: 203-877-8000 The Defendant is represented by: Scott D. Corrigan, Esq. WIGGIN & DANA, LLP 450 Lexington Ave., Suite 3800 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-551-2605 - and - Jonathan M. Freiman, Esq. Joseph C. Merschman, Esq. WIGGIN & DANA 265 Church Street P.O. Box 1832 New Haven, CT 06508-1832 Telephone: 203-498-4584 - and - Donald E. Frechette, Esq. Michael Thomas Grant, Esq. EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE 20 Church Street, 20th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: 860-541-7713 ********* 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 * * *