/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100302.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 2, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 42 Headlines AUSTRALIA: 600 Plaintiffs Sue Over 2003 Canberra Brush Fires BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Mass. for Failure to Modify Mortgage BRIGGS & STRATTON: Settles Misleading Lawnmower Label Litigation COLORADO: State Retirees Sue to Block Pension Reductions CORRIGAN OIL: $900K Bad Automatic Transmission Fluid Settlement DRAM ANTITRUST: Settlement Reportedly Near in Long-Running Case ELECTRONIC GAME: Rosen Scouts for Shareholders after Restatement FARMERS INSURANCE: Requests Bond to Cover Discovery Costs in Ark. HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE: Accused of Mistreating Mentally Disabled LEAP WIRELESS: Settles Securities Litigation for $13.75 Million MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Inks $80 Million Stockholder Settlement PORT LINCOLN: Australian Homeowners Explore Post-Fire Class Suit ROYAL BANK: Canadin Bank Sued for Role in Earl Jones Ponzi Scheme SMITHTOWN BANCORP: Coughlin Files Shareholder Suit in E.D.N.Y. STORM FINANCIAL: Commonwealth Bank Threatened with Class Action TENNESSEE VALLEY: Plaintiffs Want Coal Ash Lawsuits Consolidated TOYOTA MOTOR: Spartanburg Lawyer Moves for Consolidation in S.C. UNITED KINGDOM: South Australians Join Maralinga Class Action VERIZON WIRELESS: N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Data-Service Fees WELLS FARGO: Sued in Mass. for Failure to Modify Mortgage * "Attorney of the Year" Michael Dowd Joins Coughlin Stoia ********* AUSTRALIA: 600 Plaintiffs Sue Over 2003 Canberra Brush Fires ------------------------------------------------------------ AAP, via heraldsun.com.au, reports that the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales governments will be sued for damages resulting from the 2003 Canberra firestorm. More than 600 plaintiffs, including victims and insurance companies, will take their case to the ACT Supreme Court today. The group is seeking an estimated $100 million for injuries and losses from the bushfires that killed four people and destroyed nearly 500 houses. It argues the duty of care was breached because emergency services failed to extinguish fires that had broken out in rugged bushland in neighbouring NSW 10 days before the firestorm struck. The hearing has been set down for 12 weeks. BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Mass. for Failure to Modify Mortgage ------------------------------------------------------------- Stella M. Hopkins at McClatchy Newspapers reports that more frustrated homeowners turned to federal court this week for help with their mortgages, saying Bank of America failed to provide promised payment modifications. Johnson v. Defendant: BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 10-cv-10316 (D. Mass) (Zobel, J.), seeks class action status. The plaintiff-borrower was granted a trial modification, according to court documents, but hasn't received long-term modifications despite having submitted all required documents and made timely payments for more than three months. The claims are simple, the lawsuit says: "When a large financial institution promises to modify an eligible loan to prevent foreclosure, homeowners who live up to their end of the bargain expect that promise to be kept." The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Costello, Esq. Shennan Alexandra Kavanagh, Esq. Gary E. Klein, Esq. RODDY, KLEIN AND RYAN 727 Atlantic Avenue, 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: 617-357-5500 - and - Michael Raabe, Esq. Stuart T. Rossman, Esq. NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES 170 Common Street, Suite 300 Lawrence, MA 01840-1507 Telephone: 978-686-6900 Bank of America said it couldn't comment on the lawsuit because it hadn't yet been served. The Charlotte bank has said its "extraordinary measures" include sending workers to borrowers' homes, to help them fulfill requirements for long-term modifications. BRIGGS & STRATTON: Settles Misleading Lawnmower Label Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- FOXBusiness reports that equipment manufacturer Briggs & Stratton has entered into an agreement to resolve more than 65 class- action lawsuits. The suits allege that Briggs & Stratton placed misleading labels on its lawnmower engines. The settlement was submitted to Judge Adelman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for preliminary approval. The company has consented to a settlement of $51 million, along with an injunctive relief over the labeling of engines for 10 years. As reported in the Jan. 15, 2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter, the labeling dispute focused on its engines' horsepower rating. Plaintiffs say they were led to believe they were getting more power by purchasing more expensive models, when that wasn't the case. If the settlement is approved, it will end litigation that began as early as 2004. In the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the company will recognize a pretax expense of around $31 million related to the settlement. The company continues to deny any wrongdoing. COLORADO: State Retirees Sue to Block Pension Reductions -------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC, and Richard Rosenblatt and Associates, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit last week on behalf of Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) retirees challenging the newly- passed amendments to PERA which reduce the annual increase to the retirees' pension benefits. The suit charges that the new law, which was signed by the governor a week ago today, is unconstitutional because it impairs the retirees' contractual rights to receive pension benefits at the levels promised them when they became eligible to retire or when they actually retired. "Both the United States and Colorado Constitutions bar reductions in pension benefits once the right to those pension vests. And that is exactly what the legislature did here," said: Stephen M. Pincus, Esq. STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE, LLC 1705 Allegheny Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-281-8400 one of the attorneys for the retirees. From 1994 until now, state law has guaranteed annual pension adjustments, either through a cost of living adjustment (COLA) or a guaranteed 3.5% yearly increase. Citing PERA's underfunding, the Legislature recently passed Senate Bill 10-001, which eliminated the 3.5% annual increase in effect since 2001. "The Colorado Supreme Court has repeatedly held that once a public employee is eligible for retirement, his pension benefits may not be diminished," said lead plaintiffs' attorney William T. Payne. "This includes not just his base benefit but also any guaranteed, annual increase." In a 2004 formal Opinion, then-Attorney General Ken Salazar acknowledged that "[w]hen a PERA member retires from active service and begins receiving a pension, the member's pension becomes a vested contractual obligation of the pension program that is not subject to unilateral change of any type by the General Assembly. " As a result of the new 2% cap on the COLA, retirees will lose millions of dollars in promised benefits. For example, a public employee who retired in 2002 and who was eligible for $2,772 a month (the average PERA benefit in 2008) will lose more than $165,000 in promised benefits during the next twenty years. "This lawsuit is about the state complying with its own Constitution," said plaintiff Gary R. Justus, a retired Denver Public Schools math teacher. "The General Assembly is trying to correct its past mistakes on the backs of the retirees. We can't go back and restart our careers." Denver Public School retirees are also included in the suit as their pension plan became part of PERA on January 1 of this year. The new law eliminates the guaranteed 3.25% annual increase owed to them. Justus, et al. v. State of Colorado, et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (D. Colo.), asks the court to rule that the recent changes are unconstitutional and to order the defendants not to implement them. The other named plaintiff, Kathleen Hancock, retired from the Colorado Department of Labor in 2001. The suit is filed on behalf of approximately 100,000 PERA members who became eligible to retire or who have retired since March 1, 1994, when annual pension increases were first guaranteed under state law. Defendants are the State of Colorado, PERA, Governor Bill Ritter, PERA Board Chair Mark J. Anderson and PERA Board Vice Chair Sara J. Valt. Plaintiffs are represented by Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC -- http://www.stemberfeinstein.com/-- a Pittsburgh, Pa.,law firm that has brought numerous class actions challenging the elimination or reduction of retiree benefits. Recently, Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne represented about 750,000 retirees from GM, Ford and Chrysler in restructuring their retiree health benefits and the firm is currently involved in cases in the public sector similar to this one in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Richard Rosenblatt, Esq. is a well-respected and experienced labor and employment attorney based in Greenwood Village, Colorado. Copies of the Complaint and the 2004 Attorney General Formal Opinion are available at: http://www.stemberfeinstein.com/caseupdates More background on the decrease to the PERA COLA and the public employee retiree organization which has opposed it is available at http://www.saveperacola.com/ CORRIGAN OIL: $900K Bad Automatic Transmission Fluid Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Pelham at Daily Telegram reports that owners of vehicles that received contaminated automatic transmission fluid in 2005 and 2006 could share in a $900,000 class action lawsuit settlement. The lawsuit -- Kohn, et al. v. Corrigan Oil, Case No. 09-1015 NZ (Mich. Cir. Ct., Washtenaw Cty.) -- is one of two claims brought by: John J. Koselka, Esq. KOSELKA DeVINE, PLC 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: 734-213-1144 against Corrigan Oil Co. of Brighton. The company is accused of distributing bulk transmission fluid to shops in southeast and southcentral Michigan that was contaminated. Thousands of vehicles may have been damaged, Mr. Koselka said. A tentative settlement in a class action case on behalf of vehicle owners was reached last week in Washtenaw County Circuit Court. Judge Melinda Morris certified the case as a class action and set an April 7 hearing for class members to object. Claims for a share of the settlement are to be submitted by April 4. Corrigan Oil Co. is not making any admission of liability as part of the settlement, according to the company's defense lawyers: Janice G. Hildenbrand, Esq. Brian D. Einhorn COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF 4000 Town Center, Suite 909 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: 248-355-4141 The Brighton-based company has been a highly reputable distributor during its 65-year history, Ms. Hilenbrand said. A separate lawsuit on behalf of three transmission repair shops was tried last year in Jackson County. A circuit court jury there awarded the shops more than $2.2 million as compensation for expenses of repairing customers' damaged vehicles and for lost business. Two of the shops claimed they had to close their doors because of the damages they suffered. The award ranked as the 13th largest in Michigan last year. Corrigan Oil was preparing to appeal the jury decision when an agreement for an undisclosed settlement amount was reached last fall, Mr. Koselka said. Some of the money being paid to the transmission shops will help them with liability claims filed by customers, he said. Individual vehicle owners from throughout the region, including Lenawee County, are covered in the class action lawsuit in Washtenaw County, Mr. Koselka said. The settlement, if given final court approval after the April 7 hearing, would be distributed among all the legitimate claims that are filed by April 4. The amount each vehicle owner receives will depend on how many claims are verified, he said. The contaminated fluid was distributed to a large number of auto service shops where it was used in transmission rebuilds and fluid changes, Mr. Koselka said. An estimated 70,000 gallons of contaminated fluid was distributed. The three shops in Jackson County accounted for only 3 percent of it, so a large number of vehicles may have been damaged. "The numbers could be very large. It could be thousands," Mr. Koselka said. "How many of those are still out there after all these years may not be so large. You still have to own the car." To claim a share of the settlement, an owner must submit a notarized, sworn statement identifying what shop provided the automatic transmission fluid and that it occurred between Jan. 1, 2005, and Nov. 1, 2006. Records will show if the date and location match with the contaminated fluid distribution, he said. Each claim must also include proof the vehicle is registered with the same owner as at the time it received the bad transmission fluid, he said. That requirement may disqualify many vehicle owners, he said. "Most people have their cars, statistically, only three years," Mr. Koselka said. DRAM ANTITRUST: Settlement Reportedly Near in Long-Running Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Levine at The Recorder reports that the sprawling antitrust class action against computer memory manufacturers is about to settle. The deal will end years of litigation between companies -- like Micron Technology Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Infineon Technologies -- and indirect purchasers of DRAM memory chips, which includes California and several other states. It avoids a risky oral argument in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Plaintiffs asked the court to remove the case from its March hearings calendar, which the court did. Direct purchasers of DRAM settled a different class action long ago, to the tune of $325 million. But the two cases are very different, and no details about the indirect settlement have been disclosed. Several companies and executives pleaded guilty to criminal price fixing in the DRAM chip market. Two class actions proceeded on the civil side: one on behalf of customers who purchased DRAM directly, like computer manufacturers. The other involved indirect plaintiffs: customers who bought computers that contained DRAM chips. But the indirect case ran into trouble before Northern District of California Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue a swath of claims against the companies. Under antitrust law, indirect customers did not participate in the same market as the DRAM manufacturers, Hamilton ruled. "A contrary conclusion runs the risk of opening the floodgates to potential litigation," Judge Hamilton wrote in 2008. "In today's current business climate, and with increasingly globalized markets, nearly all markets that service one another can be said to be 'related' to such a degree that the impact of one upon another could allegedly be 'proven' with the use of econometrics." Judge Hamilton acknowledged the "devastating" effect of her ruling on the plaintiffs' case. They appealed, but it was a risk: Should the 9th Circuit affirm Judge Hamilton, her holdings would extend far beyond the DRAM case. "It would have jeopardized the plaintiff indirect purchaser business model," said: Michael Tubach, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: 415-984-8876 who represents Hynix. However, the appeal had risks for the defendants, too. "If we were reversed, it would have revived a substantial percentage of the claims on which plaintiffs originally sued," Mr. Tubach said. Liaison plaintiff attorney: Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq. ZELLE HOFFMAN VOELBEL & MASON 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-693-0700 did not return calls for comment. "The parties have reached an agreement in principle to the terms of a settlement in this and related actions, and are currently negotiating a final settlement agreement," plaintiff attorney: Josef D. Cooper, Esq. COOPER & KIRKHAM, P.C. 357 Tehama St, Second Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 wrote to the 9th Circuit. The value of the direct plaintiff settlement should be viewed separately and independently from the indirect case, said: Bruce L. Simon, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-433-9000 who was one of the lead lawyers representing direct purchasers. "There are issues with the indirect case that the directs didn't have to contend with, which would make an assessment of the litigation risk different," Mr. Simon said. Once the indirect purchasers ink a final deal, they will return to Judge Hamilton's court so she can sign off. ELECTRONIC GAME: Rosen Scouts for Shareholders after Restatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Fein at AXcess News reports that micro cap technology stock, Electronic Game Card Inc. (OTCBB: EGCI), saw its auditors withdraw three years of financials associated with a UK checking account whose funds could not be verified as belonging to EGCI. The SEC promptly halted trading. Now a class-action lawsuit is brewing. On Friday, February 26, 2010, the law firm of Laurence Rosen, Esq., The Rosen Law Firm L.P., announced it was seeking shareholders in Electronic Game Card, Inc. who purchased shares between April 5, 2007 and February 19, 2010, saying "you have important legal rights that may form the basis of a claim for damages against the Company for issuing inaccurate financial statements." It appears from Rosen's publicity that a class-action lawsuit is in the works, Mr. Fein says. The problem stemmed from a February 12, 2010 notice sent to Electronic Game Card by its auditors, Mendoza Berger and Company, LLP (M&B), informing the Company M&B was withdrawing its audit opinions for EGCI's financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007 and 2008 due to "irregularities in the audit confirmation of a bank account represented to M&B as having been held by Electronic Game Card (UK) Limited ("EGC Ltd"), a wholly owned subsidiary of EGCI that conducts its European operations." On February 19, 2010 the Company filed an 8-K announcing that its auditors had withdrawn their audit opinions. That same day, the SEC issued an Order temporarily suspending trading in the Company's stock because "there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Electronic Game Card, Inc. because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by EGMI, and by others, in financial disclosures to investors concerning, among other things, the Company's assets." "As a result of the trading suspension, EGCI's shares are effectively illiquid and shareholders have been damaged," asserted Rosen. The Company says it plans to restate its financial statements for the periods in question. But that won't stop Rosen's law firm, which specializes in representing investors "that fall victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct," according to a statement on the law firm's Web site. Electronic Game Card CEO, Kevin Donovan, was not available for comment. The Company's website is offline and a single page was post on Saturday stating: "We are currently experiencing technical difficulties on this website." A search of pages on the Site returned a 404 error, meaning they were removed from the server. FARMERS INSURANCE: Requests Bond to Cover Discovery Costs in Ark. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Massey at The Southeast Texas Record reports that six years into a pending Arkansas class action lawsuit, and still maintaining their innocence against the plaintiffs' allegations, defendant Farmers Insurance Co. wants to recoup the millions they have spent providing documents to the plaintiffs' attorneys. Farmers, one of the few remaining defendants who is still refusing to pay a settlement, is asking the Honorable Kirk Johnson in Chivers v. State Farm, et al., Case No 2004-294-3 (Ark. Cir. Ct., Miller Cty.), to enforce the Arkansas Cost Bond Statute and order the non-resident plaintiffs to pay a bond to cover the insurance company's out-of-pocket costs. In response to the request, the plaintiff's are challenging the constitutionality of the statute with the Arkansas Attorney General. The original class action, which was filed Sept 8, 2004, in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Ark., accuses hundreds of insurance companies of not paying the general contractors' overhead and profit or not accounting for the cost of a general contractor's services when estimating the repair costs under their homeowners' policies. Although the insurance companies paid previous their client's previous damages claims, the lawsuit argues that plaintiffs are entitled to additional payments. The class action alleges claims of civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, fraud, and constructive fraud. One of many insurance companies that believe this Arkansas case involves discovery abuse, Farmers has consistently asked Judge Johnson for protective orders against the plaintiff's extensive requests for production of documents. Initially, the plaintiffs agreed to allow all the insurance companies to provide a 2,000 page-sampling of their case files, instead of producing all their claims files as previously requested. Farmers filed numerous motions seeking protective orders and a court enforcement of the agreement to reduce the request of claim files. Many of the motions, some almost six years old, still remain undecided by Judge Johnson. The judge maintains he will not violate Arkansas law and delve into the issues of the litigation prior to class certification. To some extent, Farmers has attempted to comply with the outrageous requests for documents, it has produced millions of pages of claim files and had the files converted to the requested format. In its most recent motion, Farmers states it has spent at least $6 million on this production and coupled with mounting defense fees and costs, it wants the plaintiffs to post that $6 million in a bond. Farmers argues that the costs of its complying with the Court's discovery order is imposing an "undue burden and expense" and is depriving the company of its property pre-judgment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Goodson, Esq. Matt Keil, Esq. KEIL & GOODSON PA 406 Walnut St. Texarkana, AR 71854 Telephone: (870) 772-4113 - and - Michael B. Angelovich, Esq. Cary Patterson, Esq. Brady Paddock, Esq. Christopher Johnson, Esq. NIX, PATTERSON AND ROACH LLP 2900 St. Michael Dr., 5th Floor Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 223-3999 HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE: Accused of Mistreating Mentally Disabled ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Langpeter the the Olillia Packet & Times reports that lawyers for former Huronia Regional Centre (HRC) residents are in court this week to start down the path of a class-action lawsuit that alleges they suffered while living at the facility for the mentally disabled. The suit claims that the defendants -- the province and the HRC -- failed to care for and protect the HRC's residents, resulting in loss or injury, including psychological trauma, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and exacerbation of existing mental disabilities. If this case makes it to court and there is found to be merit to the allegations, the payout could be huge. The action covers residents who lived at the facility between 1876 and 2008 -- who number in the thousands -- as well as certain of their family members. If the province makes a financial settlement, it is certain the lawyers who are handling the case will be significantly enriched. The families of residents who dropped their children off at the institution were certainly negatively affected by the experience. Even though institutionalizing the mentally disabled was the prevailing wisdom for a long time, it must haunt mothers and fathers who gave up their children to what, at the time, was seen as the best thing for them. To consider that anything hurtful was happening to their children inside the halls and on the grounds of the HRC must be like a knife to the heart. The important part of the case, though, is the surviving residents. Last year, the final residents were moved out of the century-old institution and into group homes. It is these people who are the legacy of HRC, and any financial benefit that may or may not come out of this class-action suit should help these people to live out the rest of their lives in comfort. The past cannot be changed, and money cannot make up for the sorts of abuses that are alleged in this class action. The class action has not yet been certified by the courts, and may go no further than these proceedings, but if it does, the focus needs to stay on the former residents and how they can benefit from the outcome of the case. LEAP WIRELESS: Settles Securities Litigation for $13.75 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Leap Wireless International, Inc., a leading provider of innovative and value-driven wireless communications services, reached a settlement in the consolidated securities class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The lawsuits being settled relate to the Company's 2007 restatement of certain financial statements to correct for errors in previously reported service revenues, equipment revenues, and operating expenses. Although the Company and the individual defendants have denied any liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no admission of any wrongdoing, the Company believes that it is in the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters. Insurers Will Pay The settlement is contingent on court approval and provides for, among other things, dismissal of the lawsuits with prejudice, the granting of broad releases of the defendants, and a payment to the plaintiffs of $13.75 million, which would include payment of any attorneys' fees for plaintiffs' counsel. The Company anticipates that the entire settlement amount will be paid by its insurers. On February 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary approval by the court of the settlement and approval of a form of notice to potential settlement class members. About Leap Leap -- http://www.leapwireless.com/-- provides innovative, high-value wireless services to a fast-growing, young and ethnically diverse customer base. With the value of unlimited wireless services as the foundation of its business, Leap pioneered its Cricket(R) service. The Company and its joint ventures operate in 35 states and the District of Columbia and hold licenses in 35 of the top 50 U.S. markets. Through its affordable, flat-rate service plans, Cricket offers customers a choice of unlimited voice, text, data and mobile Web services. Headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Leap is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "LEAP." MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Inks $80 Million Stockholder Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- MoneyGram International, a global leader in the payment services industry, yesterday entered into memoranda of understanding to settle federal securities class and stockholder derivative actions pending in federal court. The claims asserted in In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-00883 (D. Minn) (Doty, J.), arise out of the subprime related losses in 2007 and 2008. "We are pleased to be able to enter into these agreements and bring to conclusion these legal proceedings," said Pamela H. Patsley, MoneyGram chairman and CEO. "My goal since joining MoneyGram has been to re-focus the organization on our core business and transform the company into a global market leader. These agreements will put these claims behind us and move MoneyGram another step forward towards the achievement of that goal." Under terms of the securities class action memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs agree in principle to settle the claims for an $80 million cash payment, all but $20 million of which will be paid by the Company's insurance coverage. The derivative claims memorandum of understanding provides for changes to MoneyGram's business, corporate governance and internal controls, some of which have already been implemented in whole or in part in connection with MoneyGram's recent recapitalization. The memoranda of understanding are subject to negotiation and execution of definitive settlement documents containing usual and customary settlement agreement terms, notice to the class and shareholders, and approval of the Court. MoneyGram's three remaining pre-recapitalization directors, having helped MoneyGram successfully manage the transition of the company's ownership, management and governance and resolve the litigation described above, have determined not to seek re- election as directors at MoneyGram's annual meeting for the year 2010 in order to ensure a wholly new post-recapitalization board and wholly new audit committee. "MoneyGram is committed to ensuring that its Board of Directors embodies the highest standards of governance and oversight for MoneyGram and its shareholders," added Ms. Patsley. "Our Nominating Committee and board will work to ensure that the MoneyGram Board of Directors and Audit Committee are comprised of directors best suited to uphold these standards." The company has begun a process to identify new director candidates and anticipates nominating candidates for election to the board at the 2010 annual meeting of stockholders. The Class Action Reporter's latest updated about this matter appeared in its May 26, 2009, edition. About MoneyGram International MoneyGram International -- http://www.moneygram.com/-- offers more control and more choices for people separated by distance or with limited bank relationships to meet their financial needs. A leading global payment services company, MoneyGram International helps consumers to pay bills quickly and safely send money around the world in as little as 10 minutes. Its global network is comprised of 190,000 agent locations in nearly 190 countries and territories. MoneyGram's convenient and reliable network includes retailers, international post offices and financial institutions. PORT LINCOLN: Australian Homeowners Explore Post-Fire Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABC West Coast SA reports that victims of the pre-Christmas fire in Port Lincoln, South Australia, are considering legal action, possibly a class action. The fire destroyed 13 homes and caused other extensive damage after starting on a property on the city's outskirts. About 30 landowners have hired: Michael Coates, Esq. SOUTHERN MARINE BROKERS PO Box 1755 Port Lincoln, SA 5606 AUSTRALIA Telephone: 08 8682 3399 and have received preliminary advice from a fire expert. Mr. Coates says it is still too early to decide whether there is a case for public liability damages from the insurer of the property where the fire started, but there is enough evidence to investigate further. "The group has suffered obviously quite dramatic losses, including personal trauma, and the task that we're undertaking is to determine whether anything can legally be done to recover those losses," Mr. Coates said. ROYAL BANK: Canadin Bank Sued for Role in Earl Jones Ponzi Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Canwest News Service and the Montreal Gazette reports that a victim of disgraced former financial adviser Earl Jones sought in court last month 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," 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 wilful 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. SMITHTOWN BANCORP: Coughlin Files Shareholder Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins filed Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (E.D.N.Y.), last week on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. between March 13, 2008, and February 1, 2010, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com. If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/smithtown/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges SBI and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. SBI is a bank holding company, and through its subsidiaries engages in a full range of commercial and consumer banking services. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company's financial results were artificially inflated due to SBI's material understatement of its loan loss reserves and SBI's failure to state certain of its assets at their true fair value; (ii) that the Company improperly delayed the recognition of its impaired assets in order to inflate its reported income and asset quality; (iii) that the Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially deficient; and (iv) that the Company, through its subsidiary, was engaged in unsafe and/or unsound banking practices. On February 1, 2010, SBI issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2009 results, which included a loss of $19.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2009, or ($1.34) per fully diluted share. In response to this announcement, on the next trading day, shares of the Company stock fell approximately 15%, to close at $4.60 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of SBI during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Coughlin Stoia, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Coughlin Stoia Web site at http://www.csgrr.com/has more information about the firm. STORM FINANCIAL: Commonwealth Bank Threatened with Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Michael at the Courier Mail reports that Australia's Commonwealth Bank may yet face a costly class action in the Federal Court by disgruntled Storm investors, despite a resolution scheme tipped to cost up to $300 million. In a landmark deal, the CBA this week revealed it would offer cash refunds and home loan cuts to up to 2,000 former investors in Storm Financial who lost homes and life savings in the corporate collapse just over a year ago. A lawyer who brokered the settlement on behalf of 1,250 clients: Damien Scattini, Esq. Slater & Gordon 300 Adelaide Street, Level 5 Brisbane, QLD 4000 AUSTRALIA Telephone: (07) 3220 2555 said it was a fair outcome and avoided "litigation Armageddon". But hundreds of unhappy Storm victims are holding out for a bigger compensation payout ahead of an Australian Securities and Investment Commission investigation due to be released next month. Another lawyer: Stewart A. Levitt, Esq. LEVITT ROBINSON SOLICITORS PO Box 850 Darlinghurst 1300 DX 11563 Sydney Downtown AUSTRALIA Telephone: (02) 9286 3133 who represents 70 Storm victims, said his firm was likely to file a class action in the Federal Court by Easter. He cited a legal precedent in the Goodridge vs Macquarie Bank case in the Federal Court two weeks ago to have a client's entire portfolio reinstated in full. Any court damages payout from a class action could be much higher. "It is unclear how the (CBA) system will work for people whose homes were over-valued," Mr. Levitt said. "It is also unclear when hardship provisions will cut in. "The destitution of the elderly superannuees through the operation of the CBA/Storm scheme has not been fairly or adequately addressed." Storm was Queensland's biggest corporate collapse and had about 14,000 clients -- with about 3000 retirees who invested their life savings and re-mortgaged their homes. Investors lost about $3 billion. Storm Investors Consumer Action Group yesterday said it would now "redouble" efforts to go after the other banks, including Macquarie Bank, Westpac, ANZ and Bank of Queensland. "Some banks have been recalcitrant and are trying to buy time to see the outcome by ASIC," said SICAG co-chairman Noel O'Brien. "If ASIC comes in with a better offer, it trumps what is on the table." MP Bernie Ripoll, who headed an inquiry into financial services in the aftermath of the Storm fiasco, urged other banks to follow the CBA. An ANZ spokesman said the bank would have a customer resolution scheme for 200 to 300 clients in a few weeks. Macquarie Bank refused to comment on the matter. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Plaintiffs Want Coal Ash Lawsuits Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Barker at the Knoxville News Sentinel reports that plaintiffs in three class-action federal lawsuits over the giant Kingston coal ash spill have joined forces in litigation against the Tennessee Valley Authority and two of its consultants. The amended complaint, filed late Thursday in U.S. District Court, is somewhat changed from the previous three complaints and redefines the class of potential plaintiffs -- a number that could run into the hundreds. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, plus payment for medical monitoring for anyone who joins in the action. "This new filing should move the case forward more quickly and efficiently," said Rhon Jones, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. "It should also allow the claims of those seeking class action status to speak with one unified voice." The three federal court actions are: (A) Scofield, et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No. 09-cv-_____ (E.D. Tenn) -- a copy of which is available at http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/tvaspillscofield.pdf-- in which the Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Jeffrey Hagood, Esq. Todd J. Moody, Esq. HAGOOD, TARPY & COX, PLLC Riverview Tower, Suite 2100 900 South Gay Street Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: 865-525-7313 - and - Jeff Friedman, Esq. FRIEDMAN, LEAK 3800 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 650 Post Office Box 43219 Birmingham, AL 35243-3219 Telephone: 205-278-7000 (B) Auchard, et al. v. The Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No. 09-cv-_____ (E.D. Tenn)-- a copy of which is available at http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021909flyashcomplaint.pdf-- in which the Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger T. May, Esq. MAY & RYAN, PLC 219 Second Ave. N., Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37201 - and - Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 180 Maiden Lane, 17th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: 212-558-5500 - and - John M. Broaddus, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101 Cherry Hill, NJ 08005 Telephone: 856-755-1115 (C) Giltnane, et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No. 09-cv-_____ (E.D. Tenn) -- a copy of which is available at http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/tvaspillgiltnane.pdf-- in which the Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth A. Alexanger, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 150 Fourth Avenue N., Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: 615-313-9000 - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415-956-1000 - and - Paulina do Amaral, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: 212-355-9500 A copy of the complaint filed in Raymond, et al. v. The Tennessee Valley Authority, No. _____ )Tenn. Cir. Ct., Roane Cty.), is available http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/123008tvasuit.pdfand has not been removed to federal court. In this state court litigation, the Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Ritter, Esq. 1670 Oak Ridge Turnpike Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Telephone: 865-482-7734 - and - Stephen A. Irving, Esq. 12204 Oakmont Circle Knoxville, TN 37922 Telephone: 865-966-4904 TOYOTA MOTOR: Spartanburg Lawyer Moves for Consolidation in S.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert W. Dalton at the Spartanburg Herald Journal reports that one of Spartanburg's top law firms is ready to take on one of the world's largest automotive companies, and it's angling for a home court advantage. The lawyer: John B. White Jr., Esq. HARRISON, WHITE, SMITH AND COGGINS, P.C. P.O. Box 3547 Spartanburg, SC 29304 Telephone: 864-585-5100 wants to consolidate about a dozen class-action lawsuits filed against Toyota and has filed a motion to have the case heard in Spartanburg. The motion was filed Friday in federal court in Spartanburg. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, D.C., will decide the venue. Mr. White said Spartanburg would be a prime central location to handle the cases. He said trying them in California, where Toyota Motor Sales USA is headquartered, would create an "East Coast- West Coast nightmare." "South Carolina is an easy forum for experts and other witnesses who would have to come in," White said. "Our courthouses are large enough to handle it, and our judiciary is competent to handle it." A Toyota spokesman said the company does not comment on pending litigation. Mr. White is seeking to consolidate lawsuits filed in South Carolina, California, Florida, Louisiana and West Virginia. He is asking for unspecified damages -- but, according to the lawsuit, he's seeking to have anyone living in the U.S. "who purchased or leased one new Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicle equipped with (Toyota's) electronic throttle control system with intelligence, but not equipped with a brake override system" included in the class, so a judgment against the company could run into the hundreds of millions. Toyota has recalled about 8.5 million vehicles worldwide because of complaints of sticky accelerators that caused sudden acceleration. A number of wrongful-death suits have been filed in the wake of the recall. Mr. White's suit accuses Toyota of: -- Breach of express warranty; -- Breach of implied warranty of merchantability; -- Violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, which states that consumers damaged by the "failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any obligation under this title, or under a written warranty, implied warranty or service contract" may file suit in an "appropriate" U.S. District Court; -- Violation of consumer protection laws. The suit claims that Toyota has faced "heightened scrutiny" because of accelerator issues for nearly a decade, and that almost 40 percent of all unintended acceleration complaints reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2008 involved Toyota models. Mr. White said the suit comes down to a simple question: Who is willing to take on the automotive giant to protect consumers. "Our firm is saying we will," he said. UNITED KINGDOM: South Australians Join Maralinga Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Littlely at AdelaideNow reports that more than 100 South Australians have joined a class action against the British Ministry of Defence over deaths and disabilities they believe were caused by nuclear testing at Maralinga more than 50 years ago. Among them are families of the Woomera babies - more than 60 lives lost, many without explanation, during the decade of nuclear testing, up to 600km away. Lawyers running the case say it is "just the tip of the iceberg". They have heard only from people who are "very confident" they have a case for compensation, AdelaideNow reports. Already, families of some of the stillborn children, hours-old babies and toddlers who account for more than half the plots in Woomera Cemetery for the 1950s and 1960s, have come forward. Edith Hiskins, 79, of Willaston, gave birth to a stillborn daughter, Helene Michelle, in March 1963, and still is not satisfied with the reason given for her baby's death. Mrs Hiskins, and her husband John, a serviceman at Woomera, were told the baby girl was stillborn due to "mild toxemia" - a cause not given until years after her death and only after they pushed authorities for a death certificate. The parents never saw their daughter , who was buried in the cemetery the next day, and they have never seen her medical records. "I would like some answers as to why that happened, because the answers given on her death certificate, I do not find sufficient," Mrs Hiskins said. "As far as I know, her records were sealed. It was years before we even got a death certificate." Mrs Hiskins said she, or her family, are likely to join the class action. "There are still questions to be answered and reasons to be given," she said. In all, the Woomera Cemetery contains 23 graves for stillborn babies born in the hospital between December 1953 and September 1968, and a further 46 graves for other children who died around that period. Autopsies were not always conducted and it is understood the medical records of those 23 stillborn babies remain sealed and held by the National Archives of Australia. Now, as British lawyers search for others to join the class action against the British Ministry of Defence, they will also push for the secrets of the Woomera baby graves to be revealed. Hickman & Rose partners Anna Mazzola and Beth Handley, working with the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement in Adelaide, have collected more than 100 names of people who believe they could join a class action for compensation from the British Government. They will apply for the records of the Woomera babies to be made public. Secrecy surrounding the disturbing rate of baby deaths and research suggesting fallout from tests blanketed the town despite being more than 600km from the Maralinga testing sites, warrants those families investigating claims as part of the class act, Ms Mazzola says. VERIZON WIRELESS: N.J. Lawsuit Challenges Data-Service Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., a law firm with offices in Cleveland, Ohio, and Conshohocken, Pa., has filed a consumer class-action lawsuit against Verizon Wireless in federal court in New Jersey. This lawsuit claims that Verizon charged its non- smartphone customers for data service that these customers never used. Verizon's allegedly improper data-service charges oftentimes appeared $1.99 at a time, and this lawsuit strives to reimburse people and businesses should it turn out that these charges were improper. If you believe Verizon charged you for data service that it shouldn't have and would like to see a copy of this lawsuit, please e-mail us at info@gsk-law.com. Or if you'd like to learn more about this lawsuit, contact: Daniel R. Karon, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, P.C. 55 Public Square, Suite 1500 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851. Mr. Karon -- http://www.gsk-law.com/attorney_bio.aspx?a_id=1-- is an attorney whose practice includes representing wireless- telephone customers in class-action cases. He also teaches class- action law as an adjunct professor of law at Cleveland State University's Cleveland-Marshall College of Law; lectures on class-action law at the Ohio State University College of Law; and has published many scholarly articles on class-action law. WELLS FARGO: Sued in Mass. for Failure to Modify Mortgage ------------------------------------------------------------- Stella M. Hopkins at McClatchy Newspapers reports that more frustrated homeowners turned to federal court this week for help with their mortgages, Wells Fargo Bank failed to provide promised payment modifications. Bosque, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage d/b/a America's Servicing Company, Case No. 10-cv-10311 (D. Mass) (Saylor, J.), seeks class action status. The plaintiff-borrowers were granted a trial modification, according to court documents, but haven't received long-term modifications despite having submitted all required documents and made timely payments for more than three months. The claims are simple, the lawsuit says: "When a large financial institution promises to modify an eligible loan to prevent foreclosure, homeowners who live up to their end of the bargain expect that promise to be kept." The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Costello, Esq. Shennan Alexandra Kavanagh, Esq. Gary E. Klein, Esq. RODDY, KLEIN AND RYAN 727 Atlantic Avenue, 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: 617-357-5500 - and - Michael Raabe, Esq. Stuart T. Rossman, Esq. NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES 170 Common Street, Suite 300 Lawrence, MA 01840-1507 Telephone: 978-686-6900 A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said the company "will respond to the lawsuit once we have a chance to review it." The San Francisco bank, which bought Wachovia late in 2008, has been "diligently working to convert -- from trial to completed modifications -- customers who meet the HAMP guidelines," Debora Blume said in an e-mail. "Unfortunately, not all customers who enter a HAMP trial do ultimately qualify for the program. In these instances, we work to determine if another foreclosure prevention option is available to them." * "Attorney of the Year" Michael Dowd Joins Coughlin Stoia ---------------------------------------------------------- Days after being named an "Attorney of the Year" by California Lawyer magazine Michael J. Dowd, Esq., has been added as a name partner at Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP. "I'm honored to have my name added to the masthead," said Dowd. "I look forward to continuing our firm's unmatched success in standing up for defrauded shareholders and consumers." Mr. Dowd has served on the firm's Executive Committee for years and played a key role in many of the firm's groundbreaking cases, including last year's victories against UnitedHealth and Household International -- two of the most significant results in recent securities litigation. "Mike Dowd is a lawyer's lawyer. He's not only one of the most talented lawyers I know, he is one of the hardest working guys in the securities bar," said Darren J. Robbins. Mr. Dowd, a former federal prosecutor, recently won a liability verdict against Household International (now part of HSBC) in a case in which three executives misled investors about the company's business practices, one of the few times purveyors of predatory lending practices have been held accountable. Reflecting his success, California Lawyer magazine this month announced that it will award Mr. Dowd its prestigious "Lawyer of the Year" award, noting Mr. Dowd "led a trial team to a rare verdict in a securities class action that resulted in a finding of liability for the plaintiffs after a two-week trial. . . . In the damages phase, now underway, class members could recover as much as $3 billion." In addition, Mr. Dowd led the litigation team that obtained a recovery of nearly $1 billion from UnitedHealth in the largest ever options backdating case, and was responsible for recoveries in the AOL Time Warner, WorldCom, Qwest, Vesta, U.S. West and Safeskin cases. Mr. Dowd was also the lead trial lawyer in the AT&T case, which settled after two weeks of trial for $100 million. Additionally, as the Enron case wraps up and a record-setting $7 billion is being distributed to defrauded shareholders, Patrick J. Coughlin is stepping back from the day-to-day administrative duties of the firm. "I take great pride in transitioning to Of Counsel status with a firm that has an unmatched group of talented attorneys, more institutional clients than any other securities firm, and scores of good cases," said Coughlin. Coughlin will remain as Of Counsel to the firm and continue to litigate cases. Reflective of these developments, at the end of this quarter the firm will be known as Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Mr. Dowd can be reached at: Michael J. Dowd, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 The firm is the acknowledged leader in the field, with more institutional investor clients than any other plaintiffs' securities firm and unmatched success recovering funds for defrauded shareholders, including the largest securities class action recovery (over $7 billion for Enron shareholders), the largest options backdating case (nearly $1 billion for UnitedHealth shareholders), the largest opt-out recovery (more than $650 million for WorldCom investors), and the recent liability verdict returned by the jury in the Household International case. ********* 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 * * *