/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100210.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 28 Headlines AOL LLC: Judge Armstrong Trims Federal Claims in Calif. CPL Suit AT&T INC: N.D. Ill. Lawsuit Challenges Internet Service Tax BEIERSDORF NORTH: Accused in Connecticut of False Advertising CRM HOLDINGS: Glancy Binkow Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y. DELL INC: 9th Cir. Says Customers Can Sue for Defective Computers E*TRADE SECURITIES: Accused in Calif. of Charging Inactivity Fees FORD MOTOR: Ontario Court Certifies Windsor Autoworker Class FUNSTERS' GRAND CASINO: Hearing on Employee Payroll Payment Plan GREENHOUSE: Accused of Libel & Slander by Author in New York Suit MDL 1817: CertainTeed Settles Organic Roofing Shingles Litigation NOKIA CORP: S.D.N.Y. Suit Says Phonemaker Hid Production Delays OHIO: Accused of Charging Sales Tax on Cash for Clunkers Trades QUAKER OATS: Transfat-Free Granola Bars Have Transfat, Suit Says ROTHMAN FURNITURE: Sued in Mo. for Bait-and-Switch Sales Pitch ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Suit in Wake of Earl Jones Scam TOYOTA MOTOR: Accelerator Pedal Defect Lawsuit Filed in S.D.N.Y. TOYOTA MOTOR: McCuneWright Files Suit in Calif. to Expand Recall TOYOTA MOTOR: Plans to Recall 300,000 Prius Hybrids Worldwide UNITED PARCEL: Colo. Suit Complains About "Air-In-Ground" Program UNITED STATES: White House Requests $1.15 Bil. for Black Farmers WELLS FARGO: Sued in Calif. for Excess Interest on Student Loans ********* AOL LLC: Judge Armstrong Trims Federal Claims in Calif. CPL Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge in San Francisco trimmed the federal claims from a class action accusing AOL of illegally publishing a database of the search queries of more than 650,000 members. A group of California AOL members said the online publication of their queries violated various California consumer protection laws and three federal laws: the Electronic Communications Privacy and federal laws against unjust enrichment and the public disclosure of private facts. AOL argued that its users were required to sue in Virginia courts based on a forum selection clause in their member agreements. U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong initially dismissed the complaint, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, specifying that the AOL member agreement is "unenforceable as to California resident plaintiffs bringing class action claims under California consumer law. AOL argued that this 9th Circuit mandate meant that all other claims not based on California consumer protection laws had to be dismissed. Judge Armstrong agreed. "[W]hile Plaintiffs have a right to allege a federal claim, they have cited no authority to support their contention that they have a right to adjudicate their claims in federal court where the claim at issue is one over which the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction," she wrote. "In sum, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiffs' assertion that the forum selection clause cannot be applied to claims arising under federal law." Judge Armstrong dismissed the federal claims without prejudice, saying the plaintiffs could re-file them in Virginia state court. She also dismissed a named plaintiff who doesn't live in California and didn't allege any claims under state consumer protection laws. A copy of the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong's Feb. 1, 2010, Order in Doe 1, et al. v. AOL, LLC, Case No. 06-cv-05866 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/05/AOL.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq. Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO One California St., Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-433-3200 - and - C. Oliver Burt, III, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO 4280 Professional Center Drive, Suite 350 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: 561-835-9400 Richard R. Wiebe, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE 425 California St., Suite 2025 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-433-3200 - and - James K. Green, Esq. JAMES K. GREEN, P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1602 250 Australian Ave. South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: 561-659-2029 AOL, LLC, the Defendant is represented by: Patrick J. Carome, Esq. Samir C. Jain, Esq. D. Hien Tran, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-663-6000 AT&T INC: N.D. Ill. Lawsuit Challenges Internet Service Tax ----------------------------------------------------------- WBBM Newsradio 780 reports that Todd Herst, of north suburban Lincolnshire, Ill., alleges in a federal class-action lawsuit that "despite the fact that federal and Illinois law prohibit taxation on internet access, AT&T improperly has and continues to illegally charge Illinois customers state and local sales tax on internet access on its monthly bills." The Complaint in Herst v. AT&T, Inc., and AT&T Mobility, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-00798 (N.D. Ill.) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.), cites the 1998 Internet Tax Fairness Act, claiming the law currently prohibits state and local governments from imposing taxes on internet access, including access offered by a service provider. The suit was also filed on behalf of all other Illinois consumers who signed a contract with AT&T and were charged tax for internet access. Monetary damages to consumers are "likely in the millions of dollars," the suit claims. The six-count suit seeks judgment against AT&T for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and damages under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, among others, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Rhead Shepherd, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLC 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 BEIERSDORF NORTH: Accused in Connecticut of False Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims the maker of NIVEA beauty products falsely advertises that using its creams can bring "a reduction of up to 3 cm on targeted body parts such as thighs, hips, waist, and belly." The named plaintiff, a California woman, disputes Beiersdorf Inc.'s claim that its anti-cellulite creams will make her "bikini confident!" Lead plaintiff Patricia Wiener claims Beiersdorf falsely advertises its products, including NIVEA Good-Buy Cellulite Gel- Cream and NIVEA My Silhouette! Beiersdorf pushes the products through bogus claims in a variety of media, and through the endorsement of former supermodel Tyra Banks, according to the complaint. Banks is not a party to the case. The complaint cites Beiersdorf's "Cellulite Gel-Cream" label, which makes statements such as, "NIVEA body Good-bye Cellulite Gel-Cream visibly reduces the appearance of cellulite" thanks to "L-Carnitine," which "supports the conversion of fat into energy." Its label for another product claims, "Applied at least 2-3 times a week, NIVEA Goodbye Cellulite Patches get to work fast on the targeted body areas - thighs, buttocks and stomach. Results: After three applications the skin is noticeably toned and smoother. After 4 weeks the signs of cellulite on the skin are visibly reduced." The class claims there is no scientific evidence to substantiate these claims. The New York Times reported in June 2009 that the market for topical creams was more than $47 million in 2008 and is expected to increase to $62 million by 2013. The June 6, 2009 Times article quotes a University of California clinical associate as saying, "Realistically, there is no cure for cellulite." The class seeks disgorgement, restitution and damages for breach of warranty, false advertising and consumer law violations. They are represented by James Miller with Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller and Shah of Chester, Conn. A copy of the Complaint in Wiener v. Beiersdorf North America Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00159 (D. Conn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/05/Nivea.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Miller, Esq. Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main St. Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: 860-526-1100 - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: 954-515-0123 - and - James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 E. State St. Media, PA 19063 Telephone: 610-891-9880 CRM HOLDINGS: Glancy Binkow Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of CRM Holdings, Ltd. between December 21, 2005 and November 5, 2008, inclusive. A copy of the Complaint in Munter v. CRM Holdings, Ltd., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (S.D.N.Y.), is available from the court or at http://www.glancylaw.com/pdf/CRM.pdffrom Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact the Firm by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit the Firm's Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com/ The Complaint charges CRM Holdings and certain of the Company's executive officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. CRM Holdings is a provider of workers' compensation insurance products. Its main business activities include underwriting primary workers compensation insurance policies, underwriting workers' compensation reinsurance and excess insurance policies, and providing fee-based management and other services to self-insured entities. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning CRM Holdings' financial performance and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Defendants and their affiliates engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of business to grow membership in eight self-insured groups (the "Trusts") previously administered by CRM, by charging premiums below commercial rates; (2) that the membership growth inflated gross trust revenues while reducing net paid premium income to the level that the assets of the Trusts would become insufficient to cover liabilities; (3) that, accordingly, the Trusts would fall below "fully funded" status; (4) that, as part of their fraudulent scheme and course of business to cover up the difference between assets and liabilities, Defendants and their affiliates disguised the true financial conditions of the Trusts by engaging in certain improprieties designed to result in minimal projected claims liability, including under-reserving individual claims and utilizing improper actuarial/accounting methods; (5) that Defendants and their affiliates provided the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) with materially false and/or misleading financial and actuarial reports for the Trusts which reflected artificially reduced liabilities; (6) that, as a result of the above, the Company was exposed to hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities relating to the under-funding of the Trusts; (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 3, 2008, CRM Holdings disclosed that it had received a letter from the WCB indicating its intention to initiate legal proceedings against the Company on behalf of the Trusts related to CRM Holdings' actions while acting as the administrator and broker of record for the Trusts. On this news, over the next two days of trading, shares of CRM Holdings declined $0.61 per share, or 24.31%, to close on October 7, 2008 at $1.91 per share. Then, on November 5, 2008, CRM Holdings reported its financial results for the 2008 fiscal third quarter and announced that during third quarter the Company had approximately $2.5 million of loss reserve increases that would have otherwise been reflected in the first and second quarter of 2008. As a result of this news, over the following three days of trading, CRM Holdings shares declined $0.58 per share, or more than 36%, to close on November 7, 2008, at $1.03 per share, on high volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com/ The members of Ms. Munter's legal team are: Brian P. Murray, Esq. MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801 New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 682-1818 - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 DELL INC: 9th Cir. Says Customers Can Sue for Defective Computers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that customers who bought defective Dell notebook computers can sue as a class because the binding arbitration agreement in the "Terms and Conditions of Sale" is unenforceable, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled. Customers filed suit in district court against Dell in 2005 after purchasing defective notebook computers worth $1,200 to $1,500. The sales agreement barred disputes from being brought against the company by a consumer class, and instead provided that all claims be resolved individually and through arbitration. The individual customers refused to engage in arbitration, claiming it was "not economically feasible for them" to bring separate suits. The district court denied the customers bid to file jointly and ultimately dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, despite a request that they be allowed to appeal the arbitration order. The three-judge, San Francisco-based appeals panel ruled that the "Plaintiffs did not cause any unreasonable delay in the progression of their case," so dismissal for failure to prosecute was not proper. Judge Lyle Strom wrote for the panel that the "public's interest in a resolution on the merits weighed strongly in plaintiffs' favor, and less drastic and more appropriate alternatives were available." The appeals panel also ruled that the arbitration agreement in the sales contract is unenforceable because it calls for disputes to be settled under Texas law. In this case, California has a greater interest because the plaintiffs live and filed suit in California. Because Dell's class action waiver is "unconscionable" under California law, it cannot be enforced. A copy of the decision in Omstead, et al. v. Dell, Inc., No. 08-16479 (9th Cir.), is available at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?5113 The trial court proceeding is Olmstead, et al. v. Dell, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-06293 (N.D. Calif.) (Hamilton, J.). The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Kristen E. Law, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 780 Third Ave. 48th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-355-9500 - and - Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Cory S. Fein, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: 713-581-8295 - and - John L. Malesovas, Esq. MALESOVAS & MARTIN, LLP 425 Austin Ave., 10th Floor Waco, TX 76701 Telephone: 254-753-1777 - and - Anthony L. Vitullo, Esq. FEE, SMITH, SHARP & VITULLO, LLP 13155 Noel Rd., Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: 972-934-9100 - and - Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Patrick DeBlase, Esq. KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON, LLP 8648 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: 310-854-4444 Dell, Inc., the Defendant-Appellee, is represented by: Paul Schlaud, Esq. Kim E. Brightwell, Esq. Matt Frederick, Esq. REEVES & BRIGHTWELL, LLP 221 West Sixth St., Suite 1000 Austin, TX 78701 | Telephone: 512-334-4500 - and - Douglas R. Young, Esq. C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN & MARTELL LLP Russ Building 235 Montgomery St., 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-954-4400 E*TRADE SECURITIES: Accused in Calif. of Charging Inactivity Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims online stock broker E*Trade Securities charges customers for not making enough trades, despite promising not to do that. For every inactive quarter, E*Trade takes $40, sometimes selling off people's stock to pay itself the fees, the class claims. Lead plaintiff Joseph Roling says he noticed in 2007 that E*Trade "was making notes on his account for $40 'quarterly inactivity fees,'" taking the money every quarter he did not make a trade. Mr. Roling says that when he complained, E*Trade representatives said they were "entitled to charge and collect such fees and told [him] there was nothing he could do to avoid the charges." He claims this violates E*Trade's own policy, as stated on its Web site, which promises that E*Trade will "not charge fees when your account is inactive for a period of time." By 2008, the value of stocks in Mr. Roling's account had dwindled down to the amount of inactivity fees E*Trade was charging him, so it sold his stocks and closed his account, he says. He seeks restitution and class damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. A copy of the Complaint in Roling v. E*Trade Securities LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00488 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/05/ETrade.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Reis, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: 714-352-5200 - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Steven L. Lezell, Esq. Michael Aschenbrener, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC 350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312-589-6370 FORD MOTOR: Ontario Court Certifies Windsor Autoworker Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Hall at The Windsor Star reports that a lawsuit brought on behalf of Ford Motor Company employees with respect to a planned third work shift at the company's Oakville assembly plant has been certified as a class action suit by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The plaintiffs -- Gabriel Levesque, Brenda Austin and Matthew Beltrano -- were all bargaining unit employees on layoff from Ford's operations in Windsor when the company announced plans to add a third shift in Oakville. The Plaintiffs in Levesque v. Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, Court File No. 08-4590-CP (Ont. Super. Ct. J.), were offered employment in connection with Ford's plans to introduce a third shift on July 28, 2008, according to Scarfone Hawkins LLP, the law firm representing the plaintiffs. "We are pleased that this action has been certified and will now move ahead as a class proceeding," said: David Thompson, Esq. SCARFONE HAWKINS LLP One James Street South, 14th Floor P.O. Box 926, Depot 1 Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3P9 CANADA Telephone: 905-523-1333 "This will enhance access to justice for all affected individuals and will allow claims to be determined in an efficient and economic manner." The suit alleges that, in April of 2008, Ford made a business decision to initiate a third work shift in Oakville. Ford advertised its need for employees and offered positions of employment but subsequently determined, immediately prior to the employment start date, that it would not implement the third work shift. The suit further alleges that individuals offered positions were at the time gainfully employed elsewhere but resigned their other employment in anticipation of starting employment with Ford. According to Scarfone Hawkins, Ford attributed its change of decision to extreme shifts in market conditions based on a downturn in sales of cross-over vehicles. The suit has been brought on behalf of all individuals, including the estates of deceased individuals, who were offered employment by Ford as general assemblers in connection with the planned third shift. The Plaintiffs are also represented by: Jeffrey S. Shinehoft, Esq. SHINEHOFT LAW 15 Bond Street Hamilton, Ontario L8P 1T3 CANADA Telephone: 905-529-3476 FUNSTERS' GRAND CASINO: Hearing on Employee Payroll Payment Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING EUFEMIA "EMMA" MORGAN, NANCY ) PITCHFORD, and DANIEL McGILLIVRAY, ) individually and on behalf of ) all the members of the class of ) persons similarly situated, ) ) NO. 03-2-05566-2 KNT Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) HONORABLE ANDREA DARVAS GERALD KINGEN and JANE DOE KINGEN, ) husband and wife and the marital ) community comprised thereof, SCOTT ) SWITZER and JANE DOE SWITZER, ) HEARING DATE: husband and wife, and the marital ) FEBRUARY 24, 2010 community comprised thereof, ) ) Defendants. ) NOTICE TO CLASS OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION TO CLASS MEMBERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you as a member of the class in this lawsuit brought by named plaintiffs Eufemia "Emma" Morgan, Nancy Pitchford, and Daniel McGillivray against Gerald Kingen and Scott Switzer. The action is brought as a class action on behalf of the employees of Funsters' Grand Casino for unpaid wages from the March 23, 2003, and April 11, 2003, payrolls. Judgment has been entered for total wages owed (doubled) of $241,428.96, plus prejudgment interest. The Court has also separately awarded attorney fees and costs to class counsel. At a hearing on January 29, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed distribution to class members. SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTION The proposed distribution of the judgment will take place in two phases. "Phase 1" distribution will including the following: (1) each class member will receive double the amount of his or her total wages due; (2) each class member will receive prejudgment interest, distributed on a pro rata basis as described below; (3) class counsel will receive costs and attorneys' fees incurred by class counsel in this litigation over the past 7 years that have already been awarded and approved by the Court; (4) each of the class representatives will receive $5,000 for his or her work on the case, for a total distribution of $15,000. "Phase 2" distribution will involve: (1) distribution of post- judgment interest accrued through the date of distribution of the principal judgment on a pro rata basis; (2) distribution of any additional attorney fees and costs awarded for trial court proceedings since May 1, 2006. PHASE 1 DISTRIBUTION 1. Unpaid Wages, Doubled Each class member will receive double the amount of his or her total wages due from the March 28, 2003, and April 11, 2003, payrolls. 2. Prejudgment Interest The Court awarded $41,896.96 in prejudgment interest. Distribution of the prejudgment interest to each class member will be made on a pro rata basis determined by a percentage of that class member's wages owed divided by the Principal Judgment amount. 3. Attorneys' Fees and Costs On May 1, 2006, this Court awarded class counsel attorneys' fees of $118,624.51, and costs of $10,387.62. On June 20, 2008, this Court awarded class counsel attorneys' fees of $67,426.26, and costs of $3,146.88 related to the Division I appeal. The judgment on this amount, with interest, is now $84,873.36. On January 14, 2010, the Supreme Court awarded class counsel attorneys' fees of $39,010.00, and costs of $787.40. The total amount of $253,682.89 in attorney fees and costs awarded by the Court will be distributed to the law firm of Short Cressman & Burgess, as Class Counsel. 4. Class Representative Fees Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) will be paid to each of the three class representatives, Eufemia "Emma" Morgan, Nancy Pitchford, and the estate of Daniel McGillivray, as compensation for their time spent representing the interests of the class and participating in the litigation. PHASE 2 DISTRIBUTION. 1. Post-judgment Interest After payment under Phase 1, class counsel can determine the total amount of the post-judgment interest that has accrued since May 1, 2006. Post-judgment interest will be distributed on a pro rata basis determined by each class member's percentage of wages owed compared to the principal judgment amount. Some post- judgment interest has accrued on the attorney fee and costs portion of the judgment and that will be distributed to Class Counsel. If the funds in trust are insufficient to cover the total amount of post-judgment interest accrued, the Class will ask the Court to order the Defendants to supplement the court registry. 2. Fees and Costs Since the trial court award of fees and costs on May 1, 2006, the Class has incurred additional fees in the litigation. The Class intends to file a motion asking the Court to order the Defendants to pay reasonable fees and costs. Any distribution of such award would take place in Phase 2. SUMMARY OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Each class member should contact the Claims Manager, Margaret Moynan, at 206-223-2005, or via e-mail to mmoynan@scblaw.com, and provide her with your current home address, phone number, e-mail address, and social security number. If you have an objection to the proposed distribution, you can send your written objection to the Claims Manager: Margaret Moynan, Esq. SHORT CRESSMAN & BURGESS 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98104-4088 or you can e-mail her at mmoynan@scblaw.com. Please include your phone number, address, e-mail address, and other contact information so class counsel can talk to you about your objection. We will then have a Court hearing to approve the actual amount each class member will receive. As a member of the Class, you have the right to make any objection you would like to the proposed distribution of the judgments. But you must send your objection in writing to the Claims Manager by no later than February 19, 2010. Any objection received by the Claims Manager after this date will not be valid and will not be considered by the Court. The Court will conduct a hearing on whether the proposed distribution should receive final approval at 10:00 a.m. on February 24, 2010. DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT CONTACT ONLY THE CLAIMS MANAGER, MARGARET MOYNAN, AT 206-223-2005, or MMOYNAN@SCBLAW.COM, WITH QUESTIONS GREENHOUSE: Accused of Libel & Slander by Author in New York Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that urban fiction author Teri Woods says Greenhouse nightclub managers defamed her when they called her racial discrimination lawsuit a "publicity stunt." Ms. Woods' new complaint, in Bronx County Court, follows a 2009 class action in which she claims the club prohibited guests, including her daughter, from attending a party celebrating the release of her new novel. Ms. Woods and her guests demanded $1 billion in damages in last year's class action. At the time, the club's attorneys said that Ms. Woods' guest list had more than 100 more guests than she predicted. The attorneys added that they were considering pursuing criminal charges against Woods for allegedly extorting one of the co-owners in a text message, The Daily News reported last year. In her new filing, Ms. Woods sued the club and its co-owners, John Bakhshi and Barry Mullineaux, alleging the same claims as in the original class action, along with new libel and slander claims. Ms. Woods owns two film production companies and two publishing companies, which printed her 18 novels (including her most famous book, "True to the Game"). The book release party was slated for Aug. 6, 2009. Ms. Woods says that she hired DJ Suss-one to play at the club. She says her guest list included more than 175 people, most of whom were black, and many of whom "traveled great distances to attend this event." Ms. Woods says her daughter was denied entry, as were reporters from The New York Times, Huffington Post, Daily News and Media Bistro. While they were shut out, she says, many white patrons were allowed into the "un-crowded" club. Ms. Woods says she spent nearly two hours trying to persuade management to let her guests enter, and while they were outside, her guests endured "various racially offensive remarks, slurs and innuendo" and watched "a stream of white patrons allowed in." Eventually, she says, she was "forced to abandon" the book release party. Ms. Woods and her guests filed a class action against Greenhouse, Bakhshi and Mullineaux on Oct. 6, 2009. After that claim, Woods says, Greenhouse defamed her in a "Press Conference Fact Sheet," which stated, "This is not an issue of race, but merely a publicity stunt on the part of Ms. Woods." She says the club made the same statements at a press conference, adding slander to libel. She seeks damages for lost book sales, loss of publicity, future books and movies, humiliation and loss of reputation. Copies of the Summons and Ms. Woods' Verified Complaint in Woods v. Greenhouse, et al., Index No. 300871-2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/05/AuthorParty.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nonnenmacher, Esq. BADER YAKAITIS & NONNENMACHER, LLP Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 7210 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: 212-465-1110 MDL 1817: CertainTeed Settles Organic Roofing Shingles Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- CertainTeed Corporation and Counsel for the Plaintiffs in In re: CertainTeed Corporation Roofing Shingles Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1817; Master Docket No. 07-md-01817 (E.D. Pa) (Pollak, J.), have entered into an agreement to settle a class action alleging that organic asphalt shingles manufactured by CertainTeed from July 1, 1987, through 2005 are subject to premature failure and otherwise do not perform in accordance with the reasonable expectations of users. CertainTeed denies these allegations and asserts that the vast majority of the shingles are free of any defect and will last throughout the warranty period. The parties have agreed to the settlement to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and distraction of further protracted litigation and to fully resolve this matter. Organic shingles were made with a felt reinforcement material, as contrasted with the fiberglass reinforced material used in CertainTeed shingles today. The settlement relates to organic shingles under the brand names Hallmark Shangle, Independence Shangle, Horizon Shangle, Custom Sealdon, Custom Sealdon 30, Sealdon 20, Sealdon 25, Hearthstead, Solid Slab, Master Slab, Custom Saf-T-Lok/Saf-T-Lok and the Custom Lok 25. The Horizon, Independence, Hallmark, and Hearthstead brands were marketed in both organic and fiberglass formulations, but only organic shingles, which CertainTeed no longer manufactures, are covered by the Settlement Agreement. Although the settlement covers potential class members throughout the U.S. and Canada, the organic shingles in question were sold primarily in the upper Midwestern states and in the Canadian provinces north of those states. The settlement agreement provides enhanced compensation for the removal and replacement of organic shingles during the warranty period. The amount paid per claimant depends upon a number of factors such as (1) whether the claimant originally purchased the shingles; (2) the terms of the warranty; (3) how many damaged shingles are on the roof; (4) how long the shingles have been on the roof; (5) whether the shingles are damaged as defined in the Settlement Agreement; (6) whether the damage was due to a manufacturing defect or was caused by circumstances outside of CertainTeed's control; and (7) whether the claimant has already settled the warranty claim under CertainTeed's standard warranty. The amount paid per claimant is fixed as specified in the Settlement Agreement and will not be affected by the number of people who file claims under the settlement. Potential class members have legal rights under the settlement. For example, class members must decide whether to stay in the class and obtain the settlement's benefits. If they do not want to participate, they must opt out by May 11, 2010. If they do not opt out, they will be automatically bound by the terms of the settlement. If they want to stay in the class, they need do nothing at this time, although class members who want a distribution from the settlement must file a claim form by the deadline that applies to their particular situation. The deadline for filing claims ranges from 90 days to 25 years, depending on the individual circumstances of the claim. Because this is a class action settlement, the agreement must be approved by a judge -- in this case, by United States District Court Judge Louis H. Pollak. A hearing will be held on June 8, 2010 in Philadelphia, Pa., concerning approval of the settlement. People who own or owned buildings with CertainTeed organic shingles and believe they may qualify for a payment under this settlement can obtain additional information about the settlement by checking the Web site hosted by CAC Services Group, LLC, at: http://www.CertainTeedShingleSettlement.com/ by calling 1-888- 898-4111, or by writing to: CertainTeed Claims Administrator 1400 Union Meeting Road Blue Bell, PA 19422-0761 Last month, as related in the Class Action Reporter, Clayton D. Halunen, Esq., of HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES, one of the lead attorneys representing consumers in Minnesota as well as 17 other states, indicated that the settlement has an expected value to the class of between $400 and $600 million, depending on the number of claims made. Class Counsel named in the Settlement Notice are: Michael McShane, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Charles LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street NE Washington, DC 20002 - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Liaison Counsel for the Class is: Arnold Levin, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, P.C. 510 Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 CertainTeed is represented by: Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr., Esq. HOYLE, FICKLER, HERSCHEL & MATHES LLP Suite 1500, One South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 NOKIA CORP: S.D.N.Y. Suit Says Phonemaker Hid Production Delays --------------------------------------------------------------- phonesreview.co.uk reports that a class action complaint was filed on the 5th of February in the United States of America which claims Nokia top executives hid product delays from their investors during 2008 reports, citing a Reuters reports. City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Nokia Corp., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00967 (S.D.N.Y.), also names Nokia's chief executive Olli-Pekka Kallasyuo, chief financial officer Rick Simonson and head of Nokia phone business Kai Oistarmo as defendants. Nokia has stated they will vigorously defend themselves against the class action case and has said that Nokia has looked at said allegations within the complaint and as far as Nokia is concerned they have no merit. OHIO: Accused of Charging Sales Tax on Cash for Clunkers Trades --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Ohio charged sales tax on the full value of vehicles people bought in the Cash for Clunkers program, without deducting the value of the trade-in, in Franklin County Court, Columbus. A copy of the Complaint in Brown v. Levin, Case No. 10CVH021753 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Franklin Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/05/CashClunk.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Theresa L. Groh, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. MURDOCK GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER & GROH, L.P.A. 35 East Seventh St., Suite 600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: 513-345-8291 - and - Charles R. Saxbe, Esq. Elizabeth J. Watters, Esq. CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE, LLP 65 East State St., Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: 614-221-4000 QUAKER OATS: Transfat-Free Granola Bars Have Transfat, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Quaker Oats claims its Chewy Granola Bars have no transfat, though they actually contain "dangerous amounts" of it, a class action claims in San Jose Federal Court. A copy of the Class Action Complaint for Violations of The Lanham Act, Unfair Competition Law, Common Law of Unfair Competition, False Advertising, Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act in Chacanaca, et al. v. The Quarter Oats Company, Case No. 10-cv-00502 (N. D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/05/CCATransfat.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory S. Weston, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 888 Turquoise St. San Diego, CA 92109 Telephone: 858-488-1672 - and - Jared H. Beck, Esq. BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS 28 West Flagler St., Suite 555 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-789-0072 ROTHMAN FURNITURE: Sued in Mo. for Bait-and-Switch Sales Pitch -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Rothman Furniture Stores used a bait and switch sales promotion and didn't deliver on its promises, a class action claims in St. Louis County Court. Named plaintiffs Brenton and Vernita Jones say they bought more than $1,200 worth of furniture from Rothman during the promotion in May 2009. A Rothman radio commercial stated that customers who bought $600 worth of furniture would get $600 in free gasoline and customers who spent $600 more would also get $600 in free groceries, according the complaint. The Joneses say they requested the free gas and groceries and had to fill out paperwork to enroll in the program. They say the program required them to submit monthly gas and grocery receipts for more than $100, after which they would receive two $25 debit cards each month for 24 months. But even after complying with the terms of the program, the Joneses say they have received debit cards with a total value of only $70. The class seeks punitive damages for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. A copy of the Jones' Petition for Individual and Class Action Relief in Jones, et ux. v. Rothman Furniture Stores, Inc., Case No. 10SL-CC00487 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/05/Rothman.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: David T. Butsch, Esq. James J. Simeri, Esq. Matthew R. Fields, Esq. BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC 231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-863-5700 ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action Suit in Wake of Earl Jones Scam -------------------------------------------------------------- Canwest News Service reports that a victim of disgraced former financial adviser Earl Jones sought in court Friday authorization for a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all affected parties against Royal Bank, whose Beaconsfield, Que., branch handled much of Jones' banking between 1981 and 2008. In her Superior Court submission, Montreal resident Virginia Nelles claims that "in order to carry out his fraudulent Ponzi scheme," Mr. Jones deposited and paid out funds from an account at Royal Bank titled "Earl Jones in trust," which in effect was "nothing more than a personal bank account of Earl Jones, as opposed to a trust account." Ms. Nelles' submission notes that the bankruptcy trustee determined about $1 million a year was withdrawn from that account to pay the personal expenses of Jones and his family, and argues Jones would not have been able to work his scheme without "the negligence and willful blindness of the Royal Bank of Canada." None of the allegations have been proven in court. The Royal Bank did not respond to calls for comment. Mr. Jones pleaded guilty Jan. 15 to two charges of using deceit and falsehood to defraud investors of $50.3 million. He will be sentenced this month. The class action seeks compensation equal to the total amount of funds deposited by clients in the "Earl Jones In Trust" account from 1981 to 2008, less amounts they received, plus interest. Ms. Nelles' lawyers have asked for the motion to be heard in court Feb. 26. TOYOTA MOTOR: Accelerator Pedal Defect Lawsuit Filed in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Arsenault, Esq., of Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, along with co-counsel have filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Sales and Toyota Motor Corporation in the United States District Court Southern District of New York. In the lawsuit, vehicle owners allege that Toyota concealed the true nature of the defect in their electronic throttle controls by initially claiming that their vehicles' sudden acceleration problems were caused by floor mats. In doing so, the suit alleges that Toyota engaged in deceptive conduct and breached expressed warranties. A copy of the Complaint in Davis v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00900 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), is available at: http://www.neblettbeardandarsenault.com/pdfs/davis-v-toyota-filed-complaint.pdf "Uncontrollable vehicle acceleration is obviously a very serious and potentially life-threatening problem. The questions include what did Toyota know, when and why did this happen in the first place. This lawsuit seeks to compensate the many victims of both economic and physical harm," said Mr. Arsenault, a veteran of class action and consumer protection litigation. Mr. Arsenault claims Toyota's misconduct has had a serious financial impact on its customers, who have seen their car values drop radically after the recalls were announced. "Toyota has a responsibility to their customers and the motoring public to create safe, properly functioning vehicles," said Mr. Arsenault. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Toyota. It alleges that Toyota breached implied warranties of merchantability by designing, manufacturing, distributing and selling vehicles after it became apparent they were defective. "Understandably, Toyota owners believed that their vehicles were safe. Had they known about these problems, do you think they would have bought these cars? And now, they have to deal with confusion about whether they should even be driving these vehicles and what to do with them," added Mr. Arsenault. "These customers should not have to bear this financial burden, especially since many are already suffering from the impacts of the current recession. Toyota needs to step up to the plate and make this right." Mr. Davis is represented by: Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. RHEINGOLD, VALET, RHEINGOLD, SHKOLNIK & McCARTNEY, LLP 113 East 27th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-684-1880 - and - Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. John R. Whaley, Esq. NEBLESS, BEARD & ARSENAULT P.O. Box 1190 Alexandria, LA 71309-1190 Telephone: 318-487-9874 - and - John R. Climaco, Esq. CLIMACO, LEFKOWITZ, PECA, WILCOX & GAROFOLI, LPA 55 Public Square, Suite 1950 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216-621-8484 - and - Frank E. Piscitelli, Esq. 55 Public Square, Suite 1950 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216-931-7000 - and - Mark Geragos, Esq. Shelley Kaufman, Esq. Tamar Arminak, Esq. GERAGOS & GERAGOS 644 S. Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213-625-3900 - and - D. Scott Kalish, Esq. SCOTT KALISH CO LLC 405 Western Reserve Bldg. 1468 West Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44113 TOYOTA MOTOR: McCuneWright Files Suit in Calif. to Expand Recall ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of McCuneWright, LLP has filed a request for a preliminary injunction in United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking an immediate order requiring Toyota to expand the Sudden Unintended Acceleration recalls. McCuneWright, which filed the first and leading class action lawsuit against Toyota to force the automaker to remedy the sudden unintended acceleration defects in all affected makes and models, is asking the court to issue a specific order requiring Toyota to provide a brake over-ride system on all Toyota models equipped with Electronic Throttle Control System -- intelligent ("ETCS-i") that have experienced significant numbers of sudden acceleration events. The brake override system is a failsafe system that enables the onboard computer to detect when both the throttle and the brake are being activated simultaneously, recognize that there is an error in the signals it is receiving, and immediately return the throttle to idle. It is an important failsafe system used by other vehicle manufacturers to keep a sudden unintended acceleration event from turning into a runaway vehicle with resulting crashes, injuries, and deaths. Toyota has recently announced that it will install this important safety device on all new Toyota and Lexus vehicles. In its November 26, 2009, recall, Toyota also announced that it would retroactively install this important safety device on just six existing models and further limited the recall to only recent model years -- 2007 -- 2010 Toyota Camry, 2005 -- 2010 Toyota Avalon, 2007 -- 2010 Lexus ES 350, 2007 2010 Lexus GS 350, 2006 -- 2010 Lexus IS 250, and 2006 2010 Lexus IS 350. The preliminary injunction motion asserts that by limiting this brake over-ride system recall to recent model years for just six vehicle models, Toyota has left more than 75 percent of the affected models and model years out of this important recall. "Toyota cannot justify limiting this important recall to models and model years that include less than 25 percent of the reported sudden acceleration problems," says Richard McCune, a partner at McCuneWright, LLP. "Toyota has identified an important solution to this problem and it has a duty to its customers and to public safety the apply it to all the Toyota vehicles. Toyota shouldn't wait until there's another deadly crash." On November 5, 2009, McCuneWright filed the first and leading class action on sudden unintended acceleration, Choi, et. al. v. Toyota Motor Company, et. al., Case No. 09-cv-08143 (C.D. Calif.). The preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits can be found on the Court's website or is available at: http://www.mccunewright.com/toyota.php TOYOTA MOTOR: Plans to Recall 300,000 Prius Hybrids Worldwide ------------------------------------------------------------- From Tokyo, Kelly Olsen at The Associated Press reports that Toyota plans to recall about 300,000 Prius hybrids worldwide over a brake problem and notified the U.S. and Japanese governments yesterday, citing a Kyoda news report. The recall of the gas-electric Prius will cover cars that went on sale since May last year through January, Kyodo news agency reported late Monday. Kyodo, which did not identify its sources for the information, said the automaker will notify authorities in Japan and the U.S. of its plan, which will cover more than 270,000 of the hybrids sold in the two countries. Toyota spokeswoman Ririko Takeuchi said no decision on a Prius recall has been made. Kenji Sugai, an official in Japan's Transport Ministry section in charge of recalls, said it had not been informed of any such plan by Toyota. The Kyodo report follows others in Japanese media recently that the world's largest automaker has decided to announce a recall early this week. The company has only said it will soon announce plans to deal with the braking problem. At least 100 drivers of Prius cars in the U.S. have complained to the government that their antilock brakes seemed to fail momentarily while driving on bumpy roads. The Japanese government has also received dozens of complaints. Toyota plans to fix a software glitch to correct the problem. The government says the problem is suspected in four crashes that caused two minor injuries. Toyota says the brakes will work if the driver keeps pushing the pedal. Toyota has already recalled more than 7 million other cars for repairs in the U.S. and other countries over a sticky accelerator and floor mats that can get caught in the gas pedal. The Prius is the world's top-selling gas-electric hybrid and its fuel efficiency has drawn intense interest amid concerns about global warming and dependence on fossil fuels. Toyota has sold 300,000 of the vehicles in about 60 countries. Kyodo reported recalls in other countries will follow those in Japan and the U.S. The company says it has already fixed vehicles that went on sale since last month. Though there have been reports that Toyota will recall the cars, the company has an option of a "service campaign," in which the company would simply notify owners to bring their cars in for repairs. UNITED PARCEL: Colo. Suit Complains About "Air-In-Ground" Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal RICO class action claims that United Parcel Service for years has charged customers a premium to ship packages by air while actually shipping them by truck to save money on fuel and add to its bottom line. The class claims the "Air-In-Ground program" has earned UPS "hundreds of millions of dollars" in ill-gotten gains since 1995. Lead plaintiff Arapahoe Hyundai of Denver says that the purpose of the Air-In-Ground program is to "collect the higher price charged for air transportation while actually transporting packages more cheaply by ground." The class claims that UPS charges fuel surcharges for air shipping even if it ships the packages by truck. UPS denied the allegations and said the lawsuit is "baseless." "Every package we send is transported in some part by ground," said Susan Rosenberg, a UPS spokeswoman in Atlanta. Ms. Rosenberg said the company's standard service contract states that UPS "reserves the right to use any mode of transportation," and that pricing for package delivery is based not on mode of delivery but on the "service level." But Arapahoe Hyundai's complaint states that, compared to air shipment, shipping by ground "constitutes a materially different level of service." Shipping by air costs two to three times more than shipping by ground, according to the complaint. "When a customer selects the level of service (air or ground) for his package, he does not know that UPS has already pre-determined whether his air package will actually be shipped by air or ground," the complaint states. "UPS does not tell the customer his air package will be shipped by ground or that he will be paying a higher price for a level of service he will not receive." Ms. Rosenberg says that the company has been "very openly talking about shifting some packages from air to ground" to minimize its carbon footprint. She said on Thursday that the company had not yet been served with the lawsuit but contests the charges. Arapahoe Hyundai seeks damages for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent nondisclosure, intentional misrepresentation and other charges. It seeks treble damages, an injunction and restitution. A copy of the Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq.), for Breach of Contract, for Fraudulent Inducement, for Fraudulent Nondisclosure, for Intentional Misrepresentation, for Negligent Misrepresentation, for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, for Unjust Enrichment, and Demand for Jury Trial in Arapahoe Hyundai, LLC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 10- cv-00222 (D. Colo.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/05/UPS.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk D. Tresemer, Esq. Darren A. Natvig, Esq. IRWIN & BOESEN, P.C. 4100 E. Mississippi Ave., Suite 1900 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: 303-999-9999 - and - Gerald P. McDermott, Esq. MCDERMOTT, HANSEN & MCLAUGHLIN, LLP 1890 Gaylord St. Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: 303-399-6037 - and - Peter J. McNulty, Esq. MCNULTY LAW FIRM 827 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: 310-471-2707 - and - Paul R. Alanis, Esq. Loren S. Ostrow, Esq. ALANIS & OSTROW 150 S. Los Robles Ave., Suite 665 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: 626-356-1188 - and - Stephen C. Neal, Esq. Scott D. Devereaux, Esq. Kathleen H. Goodhart, Esq. COOLEY GODW ARD KRONISH, LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: 650-843-5000 - and - Matthew J. Geragos, Esq. GERAGOS LAW GROUP 150 S. Los Robles Ave., Suite 665 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: 626-449-8700 - and - Jonathan H. Waller, Esq. G. Douglas Jones, Esq. Kirk D. Smith, Esq. HASKELL SLAUGHTER YOUNG & REDIKER, LLC 1400 Park Place Tower 2001 Park Place North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205-251-1000 UNITED STATES: White House Requests $1.15 Bil. for Black Farmers ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Pay up," an editorial piece in Monday's edition of The New York Times says. Claimants, the Times relates, are still looking for their money, more than a decade after the federal Department of Agriculture reached a landmark settlement for having cheated generations of black farmers through "indifference and blatant discrimination." The 1999 agreement on what is known as the Pigford class-action lawsuit was hailed as the biggest civil rights settlement in American history. The judge estimated a swift $2 billion payout -- or $60,000 each -- for victimized black farmers. It has not worked out that way, as the White House's new budget confirms with a request for $1.15 billion to pay still-pending claims from black farmers. The same amount was requested last year but did not survive the self-interested knives and elbows of the Congressional budget scrum. The class-action suit detailed how eligible black farmers traditionally were denied loans by the agriculture agency while their white peers went to the head of the line for growing-season wherewithal and homestead improvements. After the settlement, some farmers got their money, but far too many ran into a new buzz saw. They were stalled and rejected through paperwork technicalities, tight deadlines and a lengthy appeals process that officials insisted was necessary. There was early confusion within the Obama administration about whether the settlement process had been capped, but Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack insists no; the aim, he says, is to finally "close this unfortunate chapter." Pigford v. Glickman has not resonated across the land like Brown v. Board of Education, but the very same history of crippling injustice is at its heart. The Pigford settlement will remain a misnomer until the nation rights this historic injustice and pays what it owes. The Plaintiffs in Pigford, et al. v. Vilsack, Case No. 97-cv-01978 (D.C.) (Friedman, J.), and Brewington, et al. v. Vilsack, Case No. 98-cv-01693 (D.C.) (Friedman, J.), are represented by: David J. Frantz, Esq. CONLON, FRANTZ & {HELAN 1818 N Street, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-331-7050 - and - Phillip L. Fraas, Esq. STINSON MORRISON HECKER, LLP 1150 18th St. N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036-3816 Telephone: 202-572-9904 - and - Rose Sanders, Esq. CHESTNUT, SANDERS, SANDERS & PETTAWAY P.O. Box 1290 Selma, AL 36702-1290 Telephone: 334-875-9264 The Office of the Monitor, established under a Consent Decree entered in Pigford and Brewington, maintains a Web site at http://www.pigfordmonitor.org/ The Monitor is: Randi Ilyse Roth, Esq. Post Office Box 64511 St. Paul, MN 55164-0511 Telephone: 877-924-7483 WELLS FARGO: Sued in Calif. for Excess Interest on Student Loans ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Wells Fargo charged interest on thousands of student loans when it was prohibited from doing so. Lead plaintiff Sharon Cheslow claims Wells Fargo capitalized interest on consolidated student loans she was repaying, and of federal Stafford loans that were in deferment while she was in college. The promissory notes she signed stated that Wells Fargo was not allowed to capitalize interest on loans in repayment or in deferment, according to the complaint. Ms. Cheslow says Wells Fargo has added more than $1,000 to her principal loan balance so far. It also neglected to provide her with 30 days notice regarding the capitalization of interest on her Stafford loan, she says. The class claims that Wells Fargo intended to violate the terms of the notes. Ms. Cheslow says she contacted the lender in October 2009 with questions about the interest capitalization on her accounts and a customer service representative told her that this "was not a practice peculiar to her, but reflected Wells Fargo's general practice." She demands an injunction and class restitution and statutory and punitive damages for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law and unfair competition. A copy of the Complaint in Cheslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 10-cv-00503 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/05/StudentLoans.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberta L. Steele, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside, Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 510-763-9800 - and - Steven M. Sprenger, Esq. Michael D. Lieder, Esq. Bryce M. Miller, Esq. SPRENGER & LANG, PLLC 1400 Eye St., N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-265-8010 - and - William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SPRENGER & LANG/SWEETNAM LLC 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: 312-346-5100 ********* 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 * * *