/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100316.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 16, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 52 Headlines AK STEEL: Ohio Court Retains $1.4 Mil. Award for Attorney's Fees AK STEEL: AK RAPP Wants "Schumacher" Suit Dismissed AK STEEL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit Over Pension Plan AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit by Steel Purchasers in Ill. AK STEEL: Units Continues to Defend Suit Over Health Benefits ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Defends Suit Filed by Tronox Equity Holders COINSTAR INC: Redbox Wants "Piechur" Suit Dismissed HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Dismissal of ERISA-Related Suit HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Trial in Structured Settlement Suit Set KINDER MORGAN: Various Affiliates Face "Lugliani" Suit in Calif. LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending MEDIVATION INC: 2nd Shareholder Fraud Suit filed in N.D. Calif. MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Plumbing Tubes Suit Settlement Hearing Set MUELLER INDUSTRIES: California Lawsuit Over Copper Tubes Pending MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending NORTHERN TRUST: Loses Motion to Dismiss "Patten" ERISA Suit NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Says Shareholder Suit is Without Merit OFFICE DEPOT: Lead Plaintiff Appeal Dismissal of Amended Suit SYNGENTA CROP: Calls Latest Atrazine Suit Frivolous & Harmful TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits UNIT CORP: Appealing Court's Class Certification Ruling VIRGINIA HARBOR: Port of Palm Beach Gets Unexpected Payment ********* AK STEEL: Ohio Court Retains $1.4 Mil. Award for Attorney's Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the order granting an award of attorneys' fees, leaving intact an Aug. 31, 2009 award of approximately $1.4 million in a class action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee. The suit was filed on Jan. 2, 2002 by John D. West, a former employee of AK Steel Holding Corp. On Jan. 2, 2002, John D. West, a former employee, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee. Mr. West claimed that the method used under the AK RAPP to determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class members. The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff class and on March 29, 2006 entered an amended final judgment against the defendants in the amount of $37.6 million in damages and $7.3 million in prejudgment interest, for a total of approximately $44.9 million, with post judgment interest accruing at the rate of 4.7% per annum until paid. The defendants appealed, but their appeals ultimately were unsuccessful. Pursuant to an agreed order, on April 1, 2009 defendants paid the sum of approximately $51.5 million into a court-approved interest bearing account. The funds used to make this payment were from the AK Steel Master Pension Trust. The payment ended defendants' liability to the class members pursuant to the judgment in this matter, including with respect to interest which accrues on the judgment. It did not, however, resolve defendants' liability with respect to a claim for attorneys' fees by plaintiffs' counsel. On Aug. 31, 2009, the court granted a motion filed by plaintiffs' counsel for a statutory award of fees, awarding fees in the approximate amount of $1.4 million. The court denied a motion that sought a separate award of fees in the amount of 28% of the funds already paid into the court. On Sept. 15, 2009, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to amend the order granting an award of attorneys' fees. On Nov. 18, 2009, the Court issued an order directing distribution to the class members in the amount of approximately $51.3 million. This amount is part of the approximately $51.5 million previously paid from the AK Steel Master Pension Trust to a court-approved interest bearing account (the difference between the amounts representing Court-approved payments to the Fund Administrator). On Dec. 16, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the order granting an award of attorneys' fees, leaving intact the Aug. 31, 2009 award of approximately $1.4 million. No appeal of the December 16 order was filed and in January 2010 the approximately $1.4 in attorneys' fees were paid to class counsel, concluding the Company's obligations with respect to this litigation. Additional litigation has been filed, however, on behalf of other retirees who were excluded from the class based upon prior releases provided to the company, according to AK Steel Holding Corp.'s Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels, and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel). The company's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, and sheet and strip form. The company's operations also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in the automotive, large truck and construction markets. In addition, the company's operations include European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other materials. AK STEEL: AK RAPP Wants "Schumacher" Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK RAPP) and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee, wants the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to dismiss a purported class action filed by William Schumacher, according to AK Steel Holding Corp.'s Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Oct. 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class action against the AK RAPP and AK BPAC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794. The complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class members. Plaintiff and the other purportedly similarly situated individuals on whose behalf plaintiff filed suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from the suit filed by John D. West, a former employee of AK Steel Holding Corp., based on previous releases of claims they had executed in favor of the company. On Jan. 11, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint based upon a statute of limitations ground. That motion remains pending. Discovery has not yet commenced and no trial date has yet been set. AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels, and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel). The company's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, and sheet and strip form. The company's operations also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in the automotive, large truck and construction markets. In addition, the company's operations include European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other materials. AK STEEL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit Over Pension Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corp.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation, continues to defend a class action relating to the benefits of its pension plan. On Oct. 20, 2005, two individuals filed a purported class action against AK Steel and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:05-cv-681. The complaint alleges that the defendants incorrectly calculated the amount of surviving spouse benefits due to be paid to the plaintiffs under the applicable pension plan. On Dec. 19, 2005, the defendants filed their answer to the complaint. The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the applicable plan language had been properly interpreted. On Sept. 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be granted and that the defendants' motion be denied. The defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order adopting the Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan interpretation. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by the Court on October 27, 2008. The case is proceeding with respect to discovery on the issue of damages. No trial date has been set. No updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels, and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel). The company's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, and sheet and strip form. The company's operations also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in the automotive, large truck and construction markets. In addition, the company's operations include European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other materials. AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit by Steel Purchasers in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corp., along with other steel manufacturers, continue to defend purported class actions filed by companies who purchased steel products, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In September and October, 2008, several companies filed purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. The plaintiffs are companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January 2005 to the present. The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have conspired to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products in the United States. On Jan. 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of the claims set forth in the Complaints. On June 12, 2009, the court issued an Order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss. Discovery has recently commenced. No trial date has been set. AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels, and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel). The company's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, and sheet and strip form. The company's operations also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in the automotive, large truck and construction markets. In addition, the company's operations include European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other materials. AK STEEL: Units Continues to Defend Suit Over Health Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Corporation continues to defend a purported class action alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make changes to their healthcare benefits, according to AK Steel Holding Corp.'s Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AK Steel Holding Corp. On June 18, 2009, three former hourly members of the Butler Armco Independent Union filed a purported class action against AK Steel in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1-09CV00423, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make changes to their healthcare benefits. On June 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The named plaintiffs in the 2009 Retiree Action seek, among other things, injunctive relief for themselves and the other members of a proposed class, including an order retroactively rescinding certain changes to retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK Steel with its unions. The proposed class the plaintiffs seek to represent would consist of all union-represented retirees of AK Steel other than those retirees who were included in the class covered by the Middletown Works Retiree Healthcare Benefits Litigation. On Aug. 21, 2009, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment which, if granted in full, would end the litigation. On Sept. 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and responded to defendant's motion. On Oct. 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent certain scheduled January 2010 changes to retiree healthcare from taking effect. On Nov. 25, 2009, AK Steel filed its opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction, opposition to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. A hearing on the pending motions was held on Dec. 8, 2009. During the course of the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel notified the court that the pending motion for a preliminary injunction was limited to retirees from the company's Butler Works in Butler, Pennsylvania. On Jan. 29, 2010, the trial court issued an opinion and order granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and barring the Company from effecting any further benefit reductions or new healthcare charges for Butler Works retirees until final judgment in the case. On Feb. 2, 2010, AK Steel filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal of the decision to grant the preliminary injunction. That appeal remains pending. Discovery in the underlying case has commenced, but no trial date has yet been set. If AK Steel is unable to obtain a reversal of the decision to impose the preliminary injunction, either in connection with the final judgment by the trial court or through appeal, then the negotiated changes to retiree healthcare for the company's Butler Works retirees would be rescinded and the company's other postretirement benefit obligation would increase by approximately $125.0 million based upon current valuation assumptions. This amount reflects the current value of the estimated amount of the additional healthcare costs the Company will amortize and pay out with respect to the Butler retirees over the course of their remaining lives. AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels, and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel). The company's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, and sheet and strip form. The company's operations also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in the automotive, large truck and construction markets. In addition, the company's operations include European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other materials. ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Defends Suit Filed by Tronox Equity Holders --------------------------------------------------------------- Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to defend a consolidated class action complaint filed by purported purchasers of Tronox Inc.'s equity and debt securities, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. A consolidated class action complaint has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purported purchasers of Tronox's equity and debt securities between Nov. 21, 2005 and Jan. 12, 2009 against Kerr-McGee Corp., Anadarko and others. The complaint alleges causes of action arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, Tronox's environmental- remediation and tort claim liabilities. The plaintiffs allege that these purported misstatements and omissions are contained in certain of Tronox's public filings, including in connection with Tronox's initial public offering. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation -- http://www.anadarko.com/-- is an independent oil and gas exploration and production company, with 2.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as of Dec. 31, 2009. The company operates in three operating segments: Oil and gas exploration and production, Midstream and Marketing. Oil and gas exploration and production segment explores for and produces natural gas, crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGLs). Midstream segment provides gathering, processing, treating and transportation services to Anadarko and third-party oil and gas producers. The company owns and operates natural-gas gathering, processing, treating and transportation systems in the United States. Marketing segment sells much of Anadarko's production, as well as hydrocarbons purchased from third parties. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Anadarko divested certain oil and gas properties, primarily in Qatar, onshore United States and other international properties. COINSTAR INC: Redbox Wants "Piechur" Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Coinstar, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, is pursuing dismissal of a class action complaint alleging illegal and excessive late fees, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Redbox in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and other state statutes. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss, and has asked for the case to be remanded to Illinois state court. Coinstar, Inc. -- http://www.coinstar.com/-- is a multi-national company offering a range of 4th Wall solutions for retailers' storefronts. The company's services consist of self-service coin counting; self-service digital versatile disc (DVD) kiosks where consumers can rent or purchase movies; entertainment services, such as skill-crane machines, bulk vending machines and kiddie rides, money transfer services, and electronic payment (e- payment) services, such as stored value cards, payroll cards, prepaid debit cards and prepaid wireless products via point-of- sale terminals and stored value kiosks. The company operates in four segments: Coin and Entertainment services, DVD services, Money Transfer services and E-payment Services. HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Dismissal of ERISA-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has denied The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In November and December 2008, following a decline in the share price of the company's common stock, seven putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of certain participants in the company's Investment and Savings Plan (Plan), which offers the company's common stock as one of many investment options. These lawsuits have been consolidated, and a consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed on March 23, 2009, alleging that the company and certain of its officers and employees violated ERISA by allowing the Plan's participants to invest in the company's common stock and by failing to disclose to the Plan's participants information about the company's financial condition. The lawsuit seeks restitution or damages for losses arising from the investment of the Plan's assets in the company's common stock during the period from Dec. 10, 2007 to the present. In January 2010, the district court denied the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.thehartford.com/-- is an insurance and financial services company. It provides investment products, individual life, group life and group disability insurance products, and property and casualty insurance products in the United States. The Hartford is organized into two operations: Life, and Property and Casualty. The Life and Property & Casualty operations conduct business in 11 operating segments. Life is organized into six segments: Retail Products Group (Retail), Individual Life, Group Benefits, Retirement Plans, and International and Institutional Solutions Group (Institutional). HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Trial in Structured Settlement Suit Set ----------------------------------------------------------- A trial on liability and the methodology for computing class-wide damages in a putative nationwide class action against The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., is scheduled to commence in September 2010, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In October 2005, a putative nationwide class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the company and several of its subsidiaries on behalf of persons who had asserted claims against an insured of a Hartford property & casualty insurance company that resulted in a settlement in which some or all of the settlement amount was structured to afford a schedule of future payments of specified amounts funded by an annuity from a Hartford life insurance company (Structured Settlements). The operative complaint alleges that since 1997 the company has systematically deprived the settling claimants of the value of their damages recoveries by secretly deducting 15% of the annuity premium of every Structured Settlement to cover brokers' commissions, other fees and costs, taxes, and a profit for the annuity provider, and asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre- judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive or other equitable relief. The company denies that any claimant was misled or otherwise received less than the amount specified in the structured- settlement agreements. In March 2009, the district court certified a class for the RICO and fraud claims composed of all persons, other than those represented by a plaintiffs' broker, who entered into a Structured Settlement since 1997 and received certain written representations about the cost or value of the settlement. The district court declined to certify a class for the breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims. The company's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the class-certification ruling was denied in October 2009. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.thehartford.com/-- is an insurance and financial services company. It provides investment products, individual life, group life and group disability insurance products, and property and casualty insurance products in the United States. The Hartford is organized into two operations: Life, and Property and Casualty. The Life and Property & Casualty operations conduct business in 11 operating segments. Life is organized into six segments: Retail Products Group (Retail), Individual Life, Group Benefits, Retirement Plans, and International and Institutional Solutions Group (Institutional). KINDER MORGAN: Various Affiliates Face "Lugliani" Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Various affiliates of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., face a suit captioned James Lugliani vs. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. James Lugliani, a former Kinder Morgan employee, filed suit in January 2010 against various Kinder Morgan affiliates. On behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Mr. Lugliani claims that the Kinder Morgan defendants have violated the wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code by: (1) failing to provide meal and rest periods; (2) failing to pay meal and rest period premiums; (2) failing to pay all overtime wages due; (3) failing to timely pay wages; (4) failing to pay wages for vacation, holidays and other paid time off; and (5) failing to keep proper payroll records. Because the case was only recently filed and served, the Kinder Morgan defendants have not yet filed an answer. The defendants will file their answer in February 2010 and intend to vigorously defend the case. Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150 terminals. The company's pipelines transport more than two million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum products, and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. The company operates through four segments: Products Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals. LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The petition for rehearing filed by each of the parties to the class-action lawsuit, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR, is pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002, by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the company and certain of its subsidiaries. The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005. The Amended Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorney's fees. On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the plaintiffs to certify the case as a class-action. On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of determining remedies. Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against these Landstar subsidiaries: -- Landstar Inway, Inc., -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and -- Landstar Ranger, Inc. On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings related to the decertification of the class and the denial of the plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive relief. On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and other important elements of the Litigation relating to liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of certain of the District Court's rulings in favor of the Defendants. The Defendants asked the Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings of the District Court. On Sept. 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which, among other things, affirmed the District Court's rulings that: -- the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable federal leasing regulations from charging administrative or other fees to BCO Independent Contractors in connection with voluntary programs offered by the Defendants through which a BCO Independent Contractor may purchase discounted products and services for a charge that is deducted against the compensation payable to the BCO Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"), -- the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants of the applicable federal leasing regulations but instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which they sustained as a result of any such violations, and -- the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be handled on a class action basis for purposes of determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they sustained as a result of any violations. Further, the analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO Independent Contractors. However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District Court's rulings: -- that an old version of the lease formerly used by Defendants but not in use with any current BCO Independent Contractor complied with applicable disclosure requirements under the federal leasing regulations with respect to adjustments to compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on certain loads sourced from the U. S. Dept. of Defense, and -- that the Defendants had provided sufficient documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the applicable federal leasing regulations relating to how the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were computed. The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually sustained as a result of such violations. Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's ruling. No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009. The suit is Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 02-cv-01005 (Fla.) (Adams, J). Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel E. Cohen, Esq. Daniel R. Unumb, Esq. Paul D. Cullen, Esq. Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq. Joseph A. Black, Esq. Susan Van Bell, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007-3770 Telephone: 202-944-8600 - and - Michael R. Freed, Esq. BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, PL Humana Centre Building 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: 904-366-1500 Representing the defendants are: Daniel R. Barney, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C. 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280 Washington, DC 20036-5804 Telephone: 202-783-5485 - and - Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq. Robert L. Browning, Esq. Gregory M. Feary, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVEN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C. 10 W. Market St., Suite 1500 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968 Phone: 317-637-1777 Fax: 317-687-2414 - and - Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq. Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: 904-353-2000 MEDIVATION INC: 2nd Shareholder Fraud Suit filed in N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that company insiders dumped their own stock while Medivation inflated its share price by misrepresenting prospects for a new Alzheimer's drug, shareholders claim in San Francisco Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Shabanov v. Medivation, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01049 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/12/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 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 The Class Action Reporter covered Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and other lawyers' filing of Applestein v. Medivation, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (N.D. Calif.), on Mar. 12, 2010. MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Plumbing Tubes Suit Settlement Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement in a class-action against Mueller Industries, Inc., has received final approval from the court, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009. Four Copper Tube Actions were filed in October 2004 in state court in California and were consolidated to become the Indirect- Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action. The Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action is a purported class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of copper plumbing tubes in California and alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes. The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, Deno Holding Company, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action. Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action. The claims against WTC Holding Company and Deno Holding Company have been dismissed without prejudice in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action. Mueller Europe has not yet been required to respond in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action. The company's demurrer to the complaint has been filed in the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action. In October 2009, the court overseeing the Indirect-Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action has granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of a class-action settlement. In February 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a class-action settlement and entered judgment in accordance therewith. Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/-- manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other products. The range of these products include copper tube and fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples. The company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves, malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products. Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China. The company's operates through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment. MUELLER INDUSTRIES: California Lawsuit Over Copper Tubes Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action suit against Mueller Industries, Inc., with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes and copper tubes used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air- conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes) remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The copper tube action, which the company calls as the Indirect- Purchaser Copper Tube Action, was filed in July 2006, and is a purported class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes in the U.S. and alleges anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of both copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes. It seeks monetary and other relief. The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Co., Deno Holding Company, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named defendants in the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action. The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, and Deno Holding Company have been served, but have not yet been required to respond, in the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action. Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action. No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009. Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/-- manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other products. The range of these products include copper tube and fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples. The company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves, malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products. Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China. The company's operates through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment. MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Suit Over ACR Copper Tubes Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Mueller Industries, Inc., still faces a consolidated class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of copper tubes used in, among other things, the manufacturing of air- conditioning and refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes). Two copper tube actions were commenced in June and August 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and were consolidated to become the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube Action. In general, the copper tube actions allege anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes (copper plumbing tubes). These suits are seeking monetary and other relief. The company and Mueller Europe are named in the Indirect- Purchaser ACR Tube Action. The company and Mueller Europe have been served, but have not yet been required to respond to the claims. No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009. Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/-- manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other products. The range of these products include copper tube and fittings; brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum and brass forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic pipe, fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; fabricated tubular products; and steel nipples. The company also resells imported brass and plastic plumbing valves, malleable iron fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products. Mueller's operations are located throughout the U.S., and in Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and China. The company's operates through two segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment. NORTHERN TRUST: Loses Motion to Dismiss "Patten" ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody reports that the Honorable Judge Lefkow denied in part Northern Trust Company's motion to dismiss the ERISA class action complaint which had been filed on behalf of certain participants who held Northern Trust stock in their Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan (the "Plan") accounts. The ERISA class action, Patten v. Northern Trust Co., et al., No. 08-CV-5912 (N.D. Ill.), was filed on October 15, 2008 and was brought on behalf of all participants in the Plan who purchased and/or held shares of the Northern Trust Stock Fund at any time between October 19, 2007 and January 14, 2009. The case alleges that Northern Trust and other fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan negligently managed and administered the 401(k) plan by offering the Northern Trust Stock Fund while the Northern Trust Stock Fund was an imprudent retirement savings investment. If you were a participant in Northern Trust's 401(k) plan and held Northern Trust stock in your plan account at any time between October 19, 2007 and January 14, 2009 and would like more information about the lawsuit, or about how you may participate in the lawsuit, you may contact Plaintiff's counsel: Edwin J. Mills, Esq. Michael J. Klein, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 1-800-337-4983 E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 8, 2010, another lawsuit, Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, et al. v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00619 (N.D. Ill.), is also pending. NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Says Shareholder Suit is Without Merit ------------------------------------------------------------ Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of therapeutics to treat cancer and hepatitis, acknowledged receipt of a purported class action complaint was filed on March 5, 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Drew Weaver, allegedly a purchaser of shares of Novelos' common stock on February 1, 2010, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Novelos and Harry S. Palmin, Novelos' President and Chief Executive Officer. Weaver v. Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-10394 (D. Mass.) (Gorton, J.), claims that Novelos violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged disclosures related to the Phase 3 clinical trial of its compound NOV-002 for non-small cell lung cancer. The plaintiff seeks a jury trial. Mr. Weaver is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-742-9700 E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com Counsel for Novelos has not yet entered an appearance. Novelos has reviewed the complaint and believes that the allegations are without merit. Novelos plans to vigorously defend against the litigation. Novelos' policy is to not discuss pending litigation. About Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.novelos.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical company commercializing oxidized glutathione- based compounds for the treatment of cancer and hepatitis. Novelos is building an oncology pipeline via in-licensing or acquisition of clinical stage compounds or technologies for oncology indications. Our lead compound, NOV-002, has been administered to approximately 1,000 cancer patients in clinical trials and is in Phase 2 development for solid tumors in combination with chemotherapy. Novelos has a partnership with Mundipharma, an independent associated company of Purdue Pharma, to develop and commercialize NOV-002 in Europe and Asia (excluding China). Novelos' second compound, NOV-205, which has been administered to approximately 200 hepatitis patients in clinical trials, is in Phase 2 development for chronic hepatitis C non-responders. Both compounds have been partnered with Lee's Pharm in China. OFFICE DEPOT: Lead Plaintiff Appeal Dismissal of Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Office Depot, Inc., has filed a notice to appeal the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissing the suit, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009. Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers, alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor program funds. Each of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and are captioned as: * Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-14348), filed on Nov. 6, 2007; and * Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-81038), filed on Nov. 5, 2007. On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in the Nichols case moved to consolidate the two class action lawsuits. On March 21, 2008, the court entered an order consolidating the cases. The lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 2, 2008. On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to state a claim. On March 31, 2009, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint, but allowed the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 20, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 21, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court dismissed the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On Feb. 9, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to appeal this decision The suit is Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv- 14348, (S.D. Fla.) (Hurley, J.). Representing the plaintiffs is: David J. George, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-750-3000 Fax: 561-750-3364 E-mail: dgeorge@csgrr.com - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Alleghney Building 429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-338-2266 Representing the defendants is: Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq. Hogan & Hartson 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-459-6500 Fax: 305-459-6550 E-mail: aflindsay@hhlaw.com SYNGENTA CROP: Calls Latest Atrazine Suit Frivolous & Harmful ------------------------------------------------------------- After plaintiffs' attorneys: Christie R. Deaton, Esq. Michael E. Klenov, Esq. Christine J. Moody, Esq. Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314-241-4844 E-mail: cdeaton@koreintillery.com mklenov@koreintillery.com cmoody@koreintillery.com stillery@koreintillery.com filed Miami County Rural Water District No. 2, et al v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00188 (S.D. Ill.) (Gilbert, J.), last week, counsel for defendant Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.: Kurtis B. Reeg, Esq. REEG LAWYERS, LLC One North Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 950 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-446-3350 said another frivolous atrazine lawsuit only harms U.S. farmers. "In these tough economic times, one may wonder why anyone -- other than class action lawyers -- would seek to destroy what EPA estimates is a $2 billion annual economic benefit to the nation, and all of the jobs that go with it," Reeg said. "This lawsuit has no merit because we know from EPA-mandated testing that no water systems since 2005 have exceeded the annual average guidance for atrazine. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously." Atrazine is a widely-used herbicide in the U.S. and 60 countries around the world to help grow safe, affordable and abundant crops, including corn, sorghum, and sugar cane. EPA re- registered atrazine in 2006, stating it would cause no harm to the general population. "This suit is no surprise, as the same plaintiffs' attorneys who have been trying a wasteful case in Madison County, Ill., have been shopping this around for years," said Reeg. "Just last month, plaintiffs in Illinois voluntarily dismissed numerous damage and liability claims they had made in their case. With that disarray, it appears attorneys are scrambling to another venue in which to waste scarce taxpayer resources with junk science and false allegations for personal gain at the expense of U.S. agriculture. "Filing in federal court appears to be a mis-step, given the Iberville Parish, La., case which was dismissed by Chief Judge Butler in Mobile, Ala., in 1999. Judge Butler ruled that removing safe and approved levels of atrazine from drinking water was unnecessary and that shifting the costs of such unnecessary removal was wrong. This decision was also upheld on appeal, and we hope the court will rely on this past verdict to guide future decisions. "Everyone should bear in mind that if a 150-pound adult drank literally thousands of gallons of water with atrazine at three parts-per-billion every day for 70 years, she still would not reach the exposure level at which no adverse impact has been detected in the laboratory. "We know these communities are strapped for cash, and suing companies to upgrade their decades-old water systems may seem like an easy way to raise money, but it only harms local farmers who rely on these safely-regulated crop protection tools for their livelihood and to help cost-effectively feed a quickly growing consumer public," Mr. Reeg said. "The many statements by farmers and their associations attest to their support for atrazine and its safety in use. They have for half a century. EPA's atrazine regulation is a model of sound science carefully applied in its mission of protecting all Americans and our environment. "As a hallmark of good stewardship, my client worked voluntarily with stakeholders for years and since then also with EPA to monitor the water systems where minute detections of atrazine may occasionally occur," said Mr. Reeg. "Since 2005, no water system has had an annual average atrazine level in its drinking water greater than the EPA standard, which itself carries a 1000-fold safety factor. "The mere filing of this new lawsuit suggests additional forum shopping by out-of-town attorneys who turn neighbor against neighbor to seek profit for themselves." TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs' Appeal Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the denial of class certification in class action lawsuits against Tenet Healthcare Corporation remains pending. In September 2004, the court granted the company's petition to coordinate two pending proposed class action lawsuits, McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation and Tien, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, in Los Angeles Superior Court. The McDonough case was originally filed in June 2003 in San Diego Superior Court, and the Tien case was originally filed in May 2004 in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiffs in both cases allege that the company's hospitals violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders with respect to meal breaks, rest periods and the payment of one hour's compensation for meal breaks or rest periods not taken. The complaint in the Tien case also alleges that we have improperly "rounded off" time entries on timekeeping records and that our pay stubs do not include all information required by California law. Plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs in the McDonough and Tien cases filed motions, which the company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of virtually all nonexempt employees of the company's California subsidiaries, as separated into four classes (and one subclass) based on the specific claims at issue. The court issued an initial ruling on the plaintiffs' motions in June 2008. In that ruling, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for class certification on the claim that employees missed rest periods. However, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for class certification on the claims that employees' pay stubs did not contain all information required by California law and hourly employees did not receive appropriate wages due at the time of their termination. The court also certified a subclass of 12- hour shift employees who received missed meal penalties at a reduced rate, but stated that this subclass should be handled in connection with the Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley Regional Medical Center action that was pending in the same court, which case we subsequently settled in May 2009. Lastly, the court conditionally certified a class of all current or former hourly employees who were allegedly not provided meal periods, for the purpose of determining certain limited preliminary factual issues. The company filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's class certification ruling and, in November 2008, the court issued a reconsidered ruling denying class certification with respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims, except the subclass involving 12-hour shift employees. In December 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed the claims of that subclass, which left only the claims of the individual plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's decision in February 2009. The company continues to believe the court's November 2008 ruling was correct and are defending that ruling on appeal. No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is an investor-owned health care services company, which principally operates general hospitals and related ancillary health care businesses. As of Dec. 31, 2009, Tenet's subsidiaries operated 50 general hospitals and a critical access hospital, with a combined total of 13,601 beds, serving urban and rural communities in 12 states. Of those general hospitals, 45 were owned by Tenet's subsidiaries and five were owned by third parties and leased by Tenet's subsidiaries. Its subsidiaries also operated various related health care facilities, including a long-term acute care hospital, outpatient surgery centers, diagnostic imaging centers, occupational and rural health care clinics, and a number of medical office buildings. In January 2009, it closed Irvine Regional Hospital and Medical Center. On March 31, 2009, Tenet completed the sale of USC University Hospital and USC Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital. TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corporation continues to defend class action suits over alleged injuries in company-owned hospitals during and after Hurricane Katrina, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast region in August 2005, the company-owned five hospitals and a number of imaging centers in the New Orleans area. Three lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in late 2005 by and on behalf of patients, their family members and others who were present and allegedly injured at two of those hospitals - Memorial Medical Center and Lindy Boggs Medical Center (each of which the company has since divested) - during the storm and its aftermath. The plaintiffs allege that the hospitals were negligent in failing to properly prepare for the storm, failing to evacuate patients ahead of the storm, and failing to have a properly configured emergency generator system, among other allegations of general negligence. The plaintiffs are seeking damages in various and unspecified amounts for the alleged wrongful death of some patients, aggravation of pre-existing illnesses or injuries to patients who survived and were successfully evacuated, and the inability of patients and others to evacuate the hospitals for several days under conditions of extreme heat. In September 2008, class certification was granted in two of the suits: (1) Preston, et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc., et al. and (2) Husband et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical Center, Inc., et al. In her order, the judge certified a class of all persons at Memorial between Aug. 29 and Sept. 2, 2005, excluding employees, who sustained injuries or died, as well as family members who themselves sustained injury as a result of such injuries or deaths to any person at Memorial, excluding employees, during that time. The company's appeals of the class certification ruling were exhausted in December 2009 when the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied the company's writ of certiorari. The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans will administer the class proceedings. The class certification hearing in the remaining case - Dunn, et al. v. Tenet Mid-City Medical, L.L.C. (formerly d/b/a Lindy Boggs Medical Center), et al., which was also filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans - has been scheduled for late October 2010. Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is an investor-owned health care services company, which principally operates general hospitals and related ancillary health care businesses. As of Dec. 31, 2009, Tenet's subsidiaries operated 50 general hospitals and a critical access hospital, with a combined total of 13,601 beds, serving urban and rural communities in 12 states. Of those general hospitals, 45 were owned by Tenet's subsidiaries and five were owned by third parties and leased by Tenet's subsidiaries. Its subsidiaries also operated various related health care facilities, including a long-term acute care hospital, outpatient surgery centers, diagnostic imaging centers, occupational and rural health care clinics, and a number of medical office buildings. In January 2009, it closed Irvine Regional Hospital and Medical Center. On March 31, 2009, Tenet completed the sale of USC University Hospital and USC Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital. UNIT CORP: Appealing Court's Class Certification Ruling ------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation is appealing the ruling of the District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, certifying the class in the matter Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs also seek to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from the company for its Oklahoma production. The company has asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. The company has also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On Dec. 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. Unit Corporation -- http://www.unitcorp.com/-- is a contract drilling company. Its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries, Unit Drilling Company, Unit Petroleum Company and Superior Pipeline Company, L.L.C (Superior). Unit Drilling Company is engaged in drilling onshore oil and natural gas wells for others and for the Company's own account. Unit Petroleum Company is engaged in the exploration, development, acquisition and production of oil and natural gas properties for the Company's own account (oil and natural gas), and Superior Pipeline Company, L.L.C. buys, sells, gathers, processes and treats natural gas for third parties and for its own account (mid-stream). During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Unit acquired interests in approximately 60,000 net undeveloped acres in the Marcellus Shale Play. VIRGINIA HARBOR: Port of Palm Beach Gets Unexpected Payment ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Abramson at the Palm Beach Post reports that the Port of Palm Beach received an unexpected gift on Wednesday: a $113,000 check from a class action suit. The check, presented by Florida Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum, came courtesy of a settlement obtained on behalf of ports around the state. The state had sued Marine products manufacturer Virginia Harbor Services, alleging the firm fixed prices of foam-filled marine fenders and buoys, causing ports to pay excessive prices, McCollum said. "Anti-competitive practices are harmful to our state's economic climate and business development," Mr. McCollum said. "My office will continue working to ensure that businesses are engaging in fair practices and that competition is allowed to thrive, ultimately benefiting consumers." Port director Manny Almira said he had no idea that the port was overcharged for fenders purchased during the hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005. He learned of it little more than a month ago, when the port received a phone call from the attorney general's office. Mr. Almira said the money comes at an ideal time, as the port just spent close to $300,000 renovating its terminal and preparing for the Bahamas Celebration cruise ship, which makes its debut at the port on Monday. ********* 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 * * *