/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100520.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 20, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 98 Headlines AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Denied AMERICAN HONDA: Suit Complains About Defective Bike Piston Rings ARIZONA: ACLU Leads Challenge Against New Immigration Law ASTROFUEL: Mass. Suit Filed to Invalidate Home Heating Oil Liens BRUSH ENGINEERED: Defends Small Tube's Third-Party Complaint BURGER KING: Settles "Castenada" Suit for $7.5 Million BURGER KING: Law Firm Ready to Bring Suit for 82 Restaurants BURGER KING: Suits Over "Restaurant Operating Funds" Dismissed BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Amended FLSA-Violations Complaint BURLINGTON COAT: Faces "Jackson" Action in Florida CIGNA CORP: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Dentists' Class Action CRUM & FORSTER: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Claims Pending DENBURY RESOURCES: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Suit in N.Y. FOWLER BROTHERS: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Violating Labor Laws FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in W.D. Wash. HENRY GORDY: Family Dollar Recalls 1.8 Million Toy Dart Gun Sets INTERMUNE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Class in "Keilholtz" Suit MINNESOTA: State Retirees Say They're Being Shortchanged Benefits MOA ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls 12,011 Sandy the Squirrel Plush Toys NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Jury Verdict in Gender Bias Suit SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Approval of Settlement T-MOBILE USA: Accused of Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices TENNESSEE VALLEY: Two Claims in Suits Over Ash Spill Dismissed TENNESSEE VALLEY: Schedule for Oral Arguments in Petition Set TENNESSEE VALLEY: Six TVARS Directors Face Suit in Tennessee VISTAPRINT NV: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Dismissed Suit Pending ********* AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County has denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on the decision to compel arbitration in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On Nov. 12, 2002, a class-action complaint was filed against Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC (now know as Affinion Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC), and Allstate Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive practices act. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, but was remanded to the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County. The company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008. In granting the company's motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not class) basis. On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order. The court has yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion. On April 9, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with other companies to develop customized marketing programs that provide products and services to their end customers. AMERICAN HONDA: Suit Complains About Defective Bike Piston Rings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Honda CBR 1000 bikes with liquid-cooled inline 4-cylinder engines in model years 2008-09 have defective piston rings and burn too much oil, causing danger of "on-the-road failures," a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Schumer v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03639 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/17/HondaBikes.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by; Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213-622-6449 E-mail: gnelson@kreindler.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Karen Leser-Grenon, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main St. Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: 860-526-1100 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com kleser@sfmslaw.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 East State St. Media, PA 19063 Telephone: 610-891-9880 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com - and - Rose Luzon, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 401 West A St., Suite 2350 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-235-2416 E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com ARIZONA: ACLU Leads Challenge Against New Immigration Law --------------------------------------------------------- The New Mexico Business Weekly reports that the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of groups filed a class action lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law. The suit charges that the Arizona measure unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The action also charges that the law invites racial profiling against people of color in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments. The plaintiffs also claim it infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona. The suit includes a plaintiff from New Mexico who is attending Arizona State University, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. New Mexico does not require proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status to obtain a driver's license. Villa does not have a U.S. passport and does not want to carry his birth certificate and risk losing it, according to a news release from the organizations filing suit. Under the new Arizona law, if he cannot supply proof of legal status upon demand, law enforcement officials are required to arrest and detain him, according to the coalition filing the lawsuit. Another plaintiff, Jim Shee, is a U.S.-born citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent. He said he has been stopped twice already by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked for his papers. Other plaintiffs include organizations that focus on labor, domestic violence, day laborers and human services. These include the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, the Muslim American Society, the Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union Local 5 and United Food and Commercial Workers International. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The coalition filing the suit includes the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Immigration Law Center, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the ACLU of Arizona, the National Day Labor Organizing Network and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. A copy of the Complaint in Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01061 (D. Ariz.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/17/ACLU.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Omar C. Jadwat, Esq. Lucas Guttentag, Esq. Tanaz Moghadam, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-549-2660 E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org lguttentag@aclu.org tmoghadam@aclu.org - and - Linton Joaquin, Esq. Karen C. Tumlin, Esq. Nora A. Preciado, Esq. Melissa S. Keaney, Esq. Vivek Mittal, Esq. Ghazal Tajmiri, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 213-639-3900 E-mail: joaquin@nilc.org tumlin@nilc.org preciado@nilc.org keaney@nilc.org mittal@nilc.org tajmiri@nilc.org - and - Thomas A. Saenz, Esq. Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Esq. Victor Viramontes, Esq. Gladys Limon, Esq. Nicholas Espiritu, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: 213-629-2512 E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org cvalenzuela@maldef.org vviramontes@maldef.org glimon@maldef.org nespiritu@maldef.org - and - Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq. Anne Lai, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA 77 E. Columbus St., Suite 205 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: 602-650-1854 E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org alai@acluaz.org - and - Cecillia D. Wang, Esq. Harini P. Raghupathi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-343-0775 E-mail: cwang@aclu.org hraghupathi@aclu.org - and - Nina Perales, Esq. Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 110 Broadway St., Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: 210-224-5476 E-mail: nperales@maldef.org iespinoza@maldef.org - and - Julie A. Su, Esq. Ronald Lee, Esq. Yungsuhn Park, Esq. Connie Choi, Esq. Carmina Ocampo, Esq. ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER 1145 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213-977-7500 E-mail: jsu@apalc.org rlee@advancingequality.org ypark@apalc.org cchoi@apalc.org cocampo@apalc.org - and - Chris Newman, Esq. Lisa Kung, Esq. NATIONAL DAY LABOR ORGANIZING NETWORK 675 S. Park View Street, Suite B Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: 213-380-2785 E-mail: newman@ndlon.org kung@ndlon.org - and - Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., Esq. ROUSH, MCCRACKEN, GUERRERO, MILLER & ORTEGA 1112 E. Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85034 Telephone: 602-253-3554 E-mail: danny@rmgmo.com - and - Laura D. Blackburne, Esq. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP) 4805 Mt. Hope Dr. Baltimore, MD 21215 Telephone: 410-580-5700 E-mail: lblackburne@naacpnet.org - and - Bradley S. Phillips, Esq. Paul J. Watford, Esq. Joseph J. Ybarra, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Ave., 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: 213-683-9100 E-mail: brad.phillips@mto.com paul.watford@mto.com joseph.ybarra@mto.com elisabeth.neubauer@mto.com - and - Susan T. Boyd, Esq. Yuval Miller, Esq. Elisabeth J. Neubauer, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission St., 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: 415-512-4000 E-mail: susan.boyd@mto.com yuval.miller@mto.com ASTROFUEL: Mass. Suit Filed to Invalidate Home Heating Oil Liens ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Manganis at The Salem News reports that a Salem, Mass., woman who helped uncover a local fuel oil dealer's questionable business practices has now filed a class-action lawsuit against the company and its owner. The lawsuit was filed late last week in Salem Superior Court on behalf of Jacqueline Wilkins and other customers of a business that goes by several names, including Astrofuel and Anchor Fuel. All of the businesses, which also include Apollo Oil, are controlled by Anita and Peter Davekos of Marblehead, who ran the company from locations in Marblehead and Swampscott, Mass. Ms. Wilkins is believed to be among dozens of North Shore residents who had liens improperly attached to the titles of their homes after disputing what Ms. Wilkins and several others say were grossly inflated bills for oil and services they did not order. Ms. Wilkins is represented by: Chuck Rodman, Esq. Rodman | Walker | Di Marco 72 River Park Needham, MA 02494 who will have to persuade a judge to grant the lawsuit class- action status, but if that happens, anyone who believes they were defrauded by the company would become part of the lawsuit. Mr. Rodman is alleging a number of violations of state consumer and credit laws, as well as fraud. Among the allegations in the lawsuit: (A) Sales documents presented to customers did not include accurate information about interest charges, late fees and other charges. (B) The liens filed by Anita Davekos purported to be for labor and materials, when no work was actually done. (C) The amounts sought in the liens included unlawful charges for undisclosed cancellation, collection and purported "lien" fees "instituted for the purpose of artificially inflating the amounts of the liens." (D) The liens were never properly enforced or dissolved, leaving a cloud on the titles of homeowners, with no recourse other than to pay the liens, usually for thousands of dollars. 150 liens filed The company's practices came to light after Ms. Wilkins accidentally learned of the lien on her home while at the Salem Registry of Deeds on another matter. It's the second lawsuit filed against the oil business this year; in March, the state attorney general filed suit against the company. The Davekoses have not responded to the attorney general's lawsuit, according to the case docket, skipping a hearing on a preliminary injunction in March and failing to submit an answer to the complaint. No lawyer has appeared on their behalf. A judge in that case has ordered the company to stop the most egregious of its practices, including an order that bars them from filing new liens. But the existing liens -- some 150 of them by one count -- haven't been touched. In fact, Ms. Wilkins was unable to obtain a mortgage modification on her Salem home because of the cloud on her title, according to the complaint. A lien against a home's title can also prevent a homeowner from refinancing or selling the property until they pay to have the lien removed. While the liens are technically invalid, there is no mechanism to have them removed unless the person holding the lien agrees. Ms. Wilkins used Astrofuel one time, shortly after buying her home in 2006, after finding a coupon for $100 worth of free oil and a burner service. She used the coupon for the oil delivery and paid the balance, $129. Ms. Wilkins didn't use the company again and didn't think anything of it until almost two years later. That's when she discovered the lien for $3,533 for "burner services, fuel oil, a filing fee and labor." $2,600 in fees added When she contacted the company, Anita Davekos sent her a list of charges, including $231.90 for the tank of oil she'd already paid for with the coupon and a check, as well as two more tanks of oil that day (Ms. Wilkins' home has just two tanks, and she purchased oil for only one). The company not only "charged back" the coupon, but also tacked on $355 in interest, almost $1,000 in "late fees," a $400 "cancellation fee," a $916 "collection fee" and a $300 "lien fee." The lawsuit contends that the company never disclosed any of those fees at the time Ms. Wilkins ordered and paid for her tank of oil. Nor did they ever contact her to try to collect any of the fees before going to the registry to file the lien, which they never notified her about. "Instead, Ms. Davekos surreptitiously went to the Registry of Deeds office and placed a lien on Ms. Wilkins' residence without her knowledge for an amount that far exceeds any logical or reasonable computation of a monetary amount based on the oil that was delivered" to Ms. Wilkins, Mr. Rodman says in the complaint. After Ms. Wilkins began investigating, she discovered dozens of other liens filed by Anita Davekos against other customers. Several of them said in interviews with The Salem News last year and earlier this year that they had no idea about the existence of the liens until they were contacted by Ms. Wilkins or a reporter. She also learned that the type of lien placed against her home, called a mechanics lien, is intended to be used only by contractors performing work on a home's permanent fixtures (such as a plumber installing a new boiler or a carpenter putting in a new kitchen) and not for things like oil deliveries. In most of the cases Ms. Wilkins found, the homeowners said no burner service or other work on the heating system was ever performed, though Anita Davekos claimed that work had been done. The lawsuit seeks to recoup actual damages, as well as punitive damages, against the company and Anita Davekos. Like the attorney general's lawsuit, it is also seeking the dissolution of all of the liens, as well as an injunction barring the company from engaging in similar business practices. Anita Davekos did not return a call for comment. BRUSH ENGINEERED: Defends Small Tube's Third-Party Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Brush Engineered Materials Inc., continues to defend an amended third-party complaint filed by Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. in relation to a purported class action over beryllium exposure. A purported class action styled Gary Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Small Tube Products Corporation, Inc., et al., was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, case number 000525, on Sept. 7, 2006. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, case number 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4, 2006. The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony. The defendants are Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation, d/b/a Small Tube Products Corporation, Inc.; Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube Methods, Inc.; and Cabot Corporation. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge. The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. Plaintiff seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and expenses. Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third- party complaint against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006. Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for indemnification and contribution. Brush moved to dismiss the Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006. On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brush moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007; however, the Court denied the motion on Sept. 28, 2007. Brush filed its answer to the amended third-party complaint on Oct. 19, 2007. On Nov. 14, 2007, two of the defendants filed a joint motion for an order permitting discovery to make the threshold determination of whether plaintiff is sensitized to beryllium. On Feb. 29, 2008, Brush filed a motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff's lack of any substantially increased risk of CBD. Oral argument on this motion took place on June 13, 2008. On Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants and dismissed plaintiff's class action complaint. On Oct. 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals had granted a motion to stay the appeal due to the bankruptcy of one of the appellees, Millennium Petrochemicals. On April 3, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed a motion for relief in bankruptcy court from the automatic stay, asking that the bankruptcy court modify the stay to allow Small Tube Manufacturing's indemnification claim against Millennium Petrochemicals and the Anthony case to proceed to final judgment, including all appeals. On May 14, 2009, the bankruptcy court approved a stipulation and order modifying the automatic stay to permit Millennium Petrochemicals and Small Tube Manufacturing to participate in the appeal. On May 27, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed an unopposed motion with the Court of Appeals to lift the stay, which the court granted on June 22, 2009. On July 29, 2009, the company and the other appellees filed their brief in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Jan. 11, 2010, and the matter is now under submission. No updates were reported in the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2010. Brush Engineered Materials Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, supplies highly engineered advanced enabling materials to global markets. Products include precious and non-precious specialty metals, inorganic chemicals and powders, specialty coatings, specialty engineered beryllium alloys, beryllium and beryllium composites, and engineered clad and plated metal systems. BURGER KING: Settles "Castenada" Suit for $7.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------ Burger King Holdings, Inc., has agreed to settle the class action captioned Castenada v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Holdings, Inc., No. CV08-4262, for $7.5 million, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On Sept. 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that all 92 Burger King restaurants in California leased by the company and operated by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal and state law. In September 2009, the court issued a decision on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In its decision, the court limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials. In March 2010, the company agreed to settle this lawsuit with respect to the 10 restaurants by agreeing to pay $7.5 million, with the company funding $2.5 million and the balance funded by the company's insurer. The insurer will also reimburse the Company for $1.5 million in legal and consulting fees. The settlement is subject to final court approval. Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast food hamburger restaurant. As of June 30, 2009, the company owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees. Of these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets. BKH's restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food items. The company generates revenues from three sources: retail sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to franchisees. The company operates in three reportable segments: the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America. BURGER KING: Law Firm Ready to Bring Suit for 82 Restaurants ------------------------------------------------------------ Burger King Holdings, Inc., in April 2010, received a demand from the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the matter Castenada v. Burger King Corp. and Burger King Holdings, Inc. The company was notified that the law firm was prepared to bring a class action covering 82 other restaurants, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In the Castenada suit, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California had limited the class action to 10 restaurants. Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast food hamburger restaurant. As of June 30, 2009, the company owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees. Of these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets. BKH's restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food items. The company generates revenues from three sources: retail sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to franchisees. The company operates in three reportable segments: the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America. BURGER KING: Suits Over "Restaurant Operating Funds" Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Two suits against Burger King Holdings, Inc., alleging that the company had no right to amend its existing supply agreements to reduce certain payments, has been dismissed, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The National Franchisee Association, Inc. filed two class action lawsuits on May 4, 2009, claiming to represent Burger King franchisees and alleging that BKC, The Coca-Cola Company and Dr Pepper Snapple Group had no right to amend their existing supply agreements to reduce certain payments, known as "restaurant operating funds", to Burger King restaurants without the franchisees' consent. The two suits, both filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, are: (1) National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corporation and The Coca-Cola Company, No. 09 CV 939 W NLS; and (2) National Franchisee Association v. Burger King Corporation and Dr Pepper Snapple Group f/k/a Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., Case No. 09 CV 939 W NLS. In February 2010, the company and a group of franchisees formed a task force to resolve the dispute. The task force came to a marketing solution that rendered the cases moot, and the parties dismissed the lawsuits. Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast food hamburger restaurant. As of June 30, 2009, the company owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees. Of these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets. BKH's restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food items. The company generates revenues from three sources: retail sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to franchisees. The company operates in three reportable segments: the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America. BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Amended FLSA-Violations Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., faces an amended complaint alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-K/T filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the transition period from May 31, 2009 to Jan. 30, 2010. A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California on Sept. 17, 2009. The named plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all current, former, and future employees in the United States and the State of California for the relevant statutory time period. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Nov. 16, 2009. The amended complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the California Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal and rest periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required by statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage statements, and unfair competition. The complaint seeks certification as a class with respect to the FLSA claims, certification of a class with respect to California law claims, appointment of class counsel and class representative, civil penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, pre-judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees. Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/-- is a nationally recognized retailer of high-quality, branded apparel at everyday low prices. The company currently serves its customers through its 449 stores in 44 states and Puerto Rico. BURLINGTON COAT: Faces "Jackson" Action in Florida -------------------------------------------------- Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., faces a collective action, entitled Gail Jackson, on her own behalf and other similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corp., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. and XYZ entities 1-100, Case No. 10-60110-ASG, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-K/T filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the transition period from May 31, 2009 to Jan. 30, 2010. The action was filed in the U.S. States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Jan. 22, 2010. The named plaintiff, a former department manager, is seeking overtime compensation and other relief pursuant to the FLSA. Moreover, the named plaintiff claims that she performed work involving job duties that were primarily nonexempt in nature and is seeking overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees on behalf of all similarly situated employees in the United States. Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/-- is a nationally recognized retailer of high-quality, branded apparel at everyday low prices. The company currently serves its customers through its 449 stores in 44 states and Puerto Rico. CIGNA CORP: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Dentists' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leigh Jones at The National Law Journal reports that a federal appeals court has scotched a multibillion-dollar RICO class action launched by the American Dental Association and its members against major insurance companies for their alleged failure to pay providers. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out that the purported class action, finding that the complaint did not meet the controversial heightened pleading standards required under two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The court upheld the suit's dismissal in favor of Cigna Corp. and MetLife Inc. and their subsidiaries. The May 14 decision, written by Circuit Chief Judge Joel Dubina, found that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case could not survive the pleading standards under the U.S. Supreme Court's Twombly and Iqbal decisions. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Court in 2007 required plaintiffs to show the plausibility, not just possibility, of relief based on claims made in a complaint. Last year, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the high court required plaintiffs to present more than conclusory facts in their pleadings and instead to present claims that reasonably supported an inference of liability. The defense bar has lauded both Twombly and Iqbal as a way to filter out meritless claims, while plaintiffs' attorneys have asserted that the higher standards preclude clients with limited resources or access to information from having their day in court. The lawsuit was filed in 2003 by three dentists and the American Dental Association in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of potentially hundreds of other dentist in the insurers' networks. Related to so-called "deny, reduce and delay" multidistrict litigation there involving physicians with similar claims against insurers, the lawsuit alleged that the insurers violated the RICO Act by "bundling" dental services rendered. Such bundling, the dentists alleged, resulted in reimbursement for a smaller number of services at a lower price. After the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Twombly decision, the plaintiffs amended their complaint under the new standard. In 2008, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice, finding that it did not meet that new standard. In affirming the lower court, Dubina wrote that the "present case reflects the concerns that motivated the Supreme Court to adopt a new pleading standard in Twombly and Iqbal." It found that not only did the dentists fail to meet the Twombly and Iqbal standard, but they also did not establish their claims under procedural rules pertaining to RICO allegations. "[W]e cannot infer a scheme-driven deception from a complaint that provides no details of fraud or conspiracy," Dubina wrote. Representing the individual plaintiffs was G. Robert Blakey, a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. He said that he sensed defeat during oral arguments. "It was clear from the minute I opened my mouth," he said. "The Court of Appeals was a buzzsaw." Blakey estimated damages at between $5 billion and $6 billion. James Griffith Jr., a partner in the Philadelphia office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, represented MetLife. Jamie Zysk Isani, an associate in the Miami office of Hunton & Williams, represented Cigna. Neither attorney was immediately available for comment. MetLife provided a written statement. "MetLife has long believed that the allegations made by the ADA were without merit, and we were confident that the court would rule in our favor." The other judges on the appeals panel were Peter Fay and Harold Albritton, who was sitting by designation from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. CRUM & FORSTER: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Claims Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of antitrust claims and RICO claims against Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, United States Fire Insurance Company, among numerous other insurance company and insurance broker defendants, have been named as defendants in a class action suit filed by policyholders alleging, among other things, that the defendants used the contingent commission structure to deprive policyholders of free competition in the market for insurance. The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class consisting of all persons who between Aug. 26, 1994, and the date of the class certification engaged the services of any one of the broker defendants and who entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the insurer defendants. The trial court dismissed the federal antitrust claims and RICO claims with prejudice and declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims. On Oct. 24, 2007, plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit. The court heard oral arguments on April 21, 2009 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The court took the matter under submission and has not yet issued a ruling. Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com/-- operates as a commercial property and casualty insurance company in the United States. The company writes a range of commercial coverage, including workers' compensation, general liability, commercial automobile, property, commercial multi-peril, accident and health, bail bonds, personal automobile, homeowners', and surety coverages. It provides its products through wholesale brokers, independent regional retail firms, and national brokers. The company is based in Morristown, New Jersey. Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is a subsidiary of Fairfax Inc. DENBURY RESOURCES: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Denbury Resources, Inc. and certain individuals associated with the Company was commenced on behalf of all former Encore Acquisition Company shareholders whose shares were acquired by Denbury pursuant to a Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus dated February 5, 2010. The complaint charges that Denbury miscalculated the shares payable to Encore shareholders, violating the Merger Agreement, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, civil action number 10-cv-1917, before the Honorable David G. Trager. If you are a former Encore shareholder who received Denbury stock pursuant to the Proxy Statement, you may move the court no later than July 19, 2010, to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class. In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. You do not need to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. If you want to obtain a copy of the complaint or want more information about Weiss & Lurie or this action, or if you want to obtain a Certification form to serve as a lead plaintiff, please visit http://www.weisslurie.com/ If you wish to receive an investor package or if you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this matter, or if you have any information you wish to provide to us, please contact: Joseph H. Weiss, Esq., or Mark D. Smilow, Esq., by telephone at (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or via Internet electronic mail at infony@weisslurie.com or by writing Weiss & Lurie, The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York City 10176. FOWLER BROTHERS: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Violating Labor Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Fowler Brothers, an apple farm in Wolcott, N.Y., paid legal Mexican workers less than minimum wage and violated other labor laws, a class action claims in Rochester Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Salazar-Martinez v. Fowler Brothers, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-06257 (W.D.N.Y.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/17/EmployMay17.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dan Getman, Esq. GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC 9 Paradies Lane New Paltz, NY 12561 Tel: 845-255-9370 E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com - and - Robert J. Willis, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. WILLIS 5 W. Hargett St., Suite 404 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: 919-821-9031 FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Shareholder Lawsuit Filed in W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Frontier Financial Corporation (Nasdaq: FTBK) common stock during the period between July 22, 2008, and March 16, 2010, inclusive. Hagens Berman is currently investigating whether the Class Period should be expanded through April 30, 2010, the date the bank was placed into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 14, 2010. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Karl Barth of Hagens Berman at (206) 623-7292, or FTBK@hbsslaw.com via e-mail. 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.hbsslaw.com/cases-investigations/frontier-bank 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 Frontier and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Frontier is a financial holding company that, prior to the FDIC intervention, provided financial services through its commercial bank subsidiary, Frontier Bank. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results and engaged in improper behavior which harmed Frontier's investors by failing to disclose the extent of seriously delinquent commercial real estate loans and construction and land loans. The Company also failed to adequately and timely record losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial results and its Tier 1 capital ratio to be materially false. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, Frontier stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $186.00 per share on September 19, 2008. In July 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp ("FDIC") and the state of Washington's Department of Financial Institutions ("DFI") conducted an investigation into Frontier's banking practices and cited Frontier with engaging in certain "unsafe and unsound" practices. In March 2009, Frontier entered into a cease- and-desist order with banking regulators and agreed to take certain corrective actions related to the findings of the July 2008 report by the FDIC and DFI. Then on March 16, 2010, after the market closed, Frontier announced that it had received a Supervisory Prompt Corrective Action Directive from the FDIC. The FDIC warned that the Company was "critically undercapitalized" which could lead to Frontier being placed into conservatorship or receivership, raising doubt about the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern. Frontier further restated its previously announced fourth quarter and year end 2009 results as the FDIC determined that Frontier's loan loss provision and its valuation adjustment of other real estate owned were understated by $30 million and $3.5 million, respectively. On this news, Frontier's stock dropped $1.35 per share to close at $2.89 per share on March 17, 2010, a one-day decline of nearly 32%, on volume of 710,400 shares. On April 30, 2010, the FDIC placed Frontier Bank in receivership. When trading in Frontier shares resumed, they immediately dropped to $0.40 per share -- a loss of more than 99% from the Class Period highs. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Frontier common stock during the Class Period, and possibly through April 30, 2010. The plaintiff is represented by Hagens Berman, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. HENRY GORDY: Family Dollar Recalls 1.8 Million Toy Dart Gun Sets ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Family Dollar Stores Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 1.8 million toy dart gun sets, due to an aspiration hazard. CPSC and Family Dollar have received reports of two asphyxiation deaths involving a 9-year-old boy in Chicago, Ill. and a 10-year-old boy in Milwaukee, Wis. If a child places the soft, pliable plastic toy dart in his/her mouth, the toy can be inhaled into the throat and prevent the child from breathing. The toy dart guns, imported by Henry Gordy International Inc., of Plainfield, N.J., were sold exclusively at Family Dollar stores. Family Dollar is working cooperatively with CPSC to announce this recall because Henry Gordy International has refused to recall the toy dart gun sets. The "Auto Fire" toy target set is sold with an orange and yellow toy gun (item #P238) or a blue and yellow toy gun (item #9328), eight orange darts and a small target with numbers from 1 to 20. The gun's item number is located on one side of the handle in raised lettering. The soft plastic darts measure just over one inch in length and have a small suction cup at one end with a diameter of about 1/2 inch. The target board is black, yellow, red and green, and measures five inches in diameter. "Gordy Toy" for "Ages 8+" is printed on the packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10234.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Family Dollar stores nationwide from September 2005 through January 2009 for about $1.50. Consumers should immediately take the toy target sets from children and discard them. Consumers can also return the guns and darts to a Family Dollar store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Family Dollar at (800) 547-0359 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at http://www.familydollar.com/ INTERMUNE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- InterMune Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint alleging fraudulent misrepresentation of the medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF), remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In May 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah Jane Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No. C-08- 02376. Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged that the company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF. The complaint asserted various claims against the company, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs. The complaint also sought equitable relief. Between June 2008 and September 2008, three additional complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging similar facts. In February 2009, the Court consolidated the four complaints for pretrial purposes. The motions to dismiss in all four cases were heard in February 2009. In April 2009, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the complaints in all four cases in their entirety and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaints. Following the initial motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and on Jan. 25, 2010, the company and the other defendants each filed motions to dismiss the most recently filed amended complaints. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs have filed an opposition to these motions. The motions were fully briefed as of March 8, 2010 and was set to be heard on May 10, 2010. InterMune Inc. -- http://www.intermune.com/-- is a biotechnology company focused on the research, development and commercialization of innovative therapies in pulmonology and hepatology. InterMune has an R&D portfolio addressing idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. The pulmonology portfolio includes Esbriet(TM) (pirfenidone) for which InterMune has completed a Phase 3 program in patients with IPF (CAPACITY). A Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) is under review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The hepatology portfolio includes the HCV protease inhibitor compound danoprevir (also known as RG7227 or ITMN-191, partnered by Roche) that entered Phase 2b in August 2009 and a second-generation HCV protease inhibitor research program. LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Class in "Keilholtz" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has issued an order certifying a nationwide class of plaintiffs in the matter styled Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products, Lennox Industries and Lennox International, Inc., according to Lennox International Inc.'s April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The class action lawsuit against the company was filed on Feb. 6, 2008. The lawsuit, which involves no personal injury claims, alleges that certain of the company's single-pane, glass-front, gas fireplaces are hazardous and that consumers were not adequately warned, and seeks economic damages. On Feb. 16, 2010, the court issued an order certifying a nationwide class of plaintiffs. Through its subsidiaries, Lennox International Inc. -- http://www.lennoxinternational.com/-- is a global leader in the heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration markets. MINNESOTA: State Retirees Say They're Being Shortchanged Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that two retired Minnesota state employees have filed a class action lawsuit arguing that the Legislature has violated the contractual rights of public sector retirees to receive pension benefits at levels promised when they retired. In the legislative session that ended Monday, state lawmakers curtailed the yearly rate of increase for pension benefits from a 2.5-percent annual increase to between 1 and 2 percent depending on the pension fund. Attorneys for the state employees say that violates the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions. The attorneys say retirees will lose millions of dollars in promised benefits. They say thousands of public sector retirees are eligible to join the lawsuit. MOA ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls 12,011 Sandy the Squirrel Plush Toys --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with MOA Entertainment Co. LLC, of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 1200 produced and 11 sold Sandy the Squirrel Plush Toys. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. Young children can remove and ingest the squirrel's nose, which poses a choking hazard. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves the Sandy the Squirrel plush toy, which measures approximately 1 foot high by 4.5 inches wide. It is a brown and tan plush toy with a purple skirt and bikini top. "Po #: 86849" and the production date of 01/2010 are printed on the toy's smaller white tag. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10736.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Nickelodeon, 4U and NU stores in the Mall of America in March 2010 for about $10 Consumers should take the toy away from children and return it to the Nickelodeon Store, Spongebob 4U, or NU Stuff stores in Nickelodeon Universe at Mall of America to receive a full refund. Consumers can also contact Mall of America for a full refund or exchange for a different toy of equal value. For additional information, contact for Nickelodeon Universe toll-free at (877) 336-9716 or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.nickelodeonuniverse.com/ NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Jury Verdict in Gender Bias Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Liz Jones at FiercePharma.com reports that a federal jury in Manhattan has found that Novartis Pharmaceuticals discriminated against female sales representatives in the U.S. and must pay $3.4 million in compensatory damages to a dozen women plus punitive damages. After five days of deliberations, the jury of four men and five women determined the company engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by paying its female sales force less than its male employees and denying them the same opportunities for promotions, NASDAQ reports. More than 5,600 women make up the class that was suing Novartis and included female sales representatives and entry-level managers who worked at the company since 2002, according to an April 7 statement issued by Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP, the law firm representing the plaintiffs. The complaint detailed specific discriminatory incidents as the basis for the female employees' complaints, including a Novartis manager encouraging an employee to get an abortion and a manager stating a preference not to hire females because "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes flex time and a baby carriage," the law firm says in the statement. David Sanford, a lawyer for the women, told jurors in his May 10 closing arguments that the company "tolerated a culture of gender discrimination in pay, and promotion, tolerated a culture of sexism, a boys' club atmosphere," Bloomberg says. But Richard Schnadig, a lawyer for the company, told jurors at the end of the trial that the "fair, decent, responsive company" sought to advance the careers of women and took firm steps against mistreatment. He added that the case lacks merit. Novartis says in a statement that it is disappointed in the verdict and plans to appeal, according to Bloomberg. "We believe the plaintiffs' claims were unfounded," the company said, adding that it has been "recognized for its commitment to an inclusive environment." SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The appeal of the plaintiff on the denial of the preliminary approval on the settlement entered into with Saia, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The company is a defendant in a lawsuit originally filed in July 2007 in California state court on behalf of California dock workers alleging various violations of state labor laws. In August 2007, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The claims include the alleged failure of the company to provide rest and meal breaks and the alleged failure to reimburse the employees for the cost of work shoes, among other claims. In January 2008, the parties negotiated a conditional class-wide settlement under which the company would pay $800,000 to settle these claims. This pre-certification settlement is subject to court approval. In March 2008, the District Court denied preliminary approval and the named Plaintiff filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit seeking permission to appeal this ruling. The petition was granted and the appeal is now pending. Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is a less-than-truckload provider of regional, interregional and guaranteed services covering 34 states. With headquarters in Georgia and a network of 147 terminals, Saia employs 7,200 people. T-MOBILE USA: Accused of Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that T-Mobile lured in customers with promises of free round-trip flights, but never delivered, a class action claims in King County Court. After offering a "Fly Free in '08" promotion, T-Mobile rejected people for "various, arbitrary reasons," and made it impossible "to contact a representative for assistance by telephone, e-mail, or any other electronic means," the class claims. T-Mobile offered free tickets to people who subscribed to its "myFaves" calling plan for a 2-year period, but the "offer was false and misleading because it failed to disclose to plaintiff and the class that even if they met the eligibility requirements of the Fly Free in '08 offer, few if any consumers would actually receive their round-trip airfare," named plaintiff Richard Fine says. Mr. Fine claims he met all the requirements for the free ticket, but T-Mobile told him his booking request form was incomplete and would have to be filled out again. Mr. Fine says he called T- Mobile repeatedly to resolve the problem and finally was told that his information had been accepted. "Shortly thereafter, plaintiff received another phone call from someone acting on T-Mobile's behalf who inexplicably asked plaintiff to confirm that plaintiff no longer wanted his free flight. After informing her that, indeed, he still wanted his free flight, plaintiff was assured that he would receive it and that he would be contacted within a month of his chosen departure date," the complaint states. "Thereafter, plaintiff received a message from someone acting on T-Mobile's behalf asking him to contact them regarding his flight. Plaintiff attempted to call back the number provided three times during normal business hours but was unable to reach anyone. "To date, plaintiff has still not received the free round-trip flight T-Mobile promised him." Mr. Fine seeks restitution and punitive damages for class members in 39 states and the District of Columbia, alleging breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade. A copy of the Complaint in Fine v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 10-2-17363-3 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/17/TMobile.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 Fremont Ave. North Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: 206-816-6603 E-mail: bterrell@tmdlegal.com - and - William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 5 Revere Dr., Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: 847-498-7500 E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com - and - David M. Arbogast, Esq. Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq. ARBOGAST & BERNS LLP 6303 Owensmouth Ave., 10th Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 818-961-2000 E-mail: darbogast@law111.com jberns@law111.com TENNESSEE VALLEY: Two Claims in Suits Over Ash Spill Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has dismissed the claims related to Tennessee Valley Authority's decision to build and operate the ash pond, the claims related to TVA's recovery and remediation activities, and the demands for punitive damages and a jury trial, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Fifty-seven lawsuits based on the Kingston ash spill have been filed, and two of these have been voluntarily dismissed. All of the remaining cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The lawsuits, four of which are proposed class actions, have been filed by residents, businesses, and property owners in the Kingston area. The plaintiffs generally allege various causes of action based in tort - including nuisance and strict liability - and inverse condemnation, and generally seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, court orders to clean up the plaintiffs' properties and surrounding properties, and other relief. With regard to the proposed class actions and certain other suits, TVA filed several motions, including motions to dismiss some or all of the claims. On March 26, 2010, the court issued its decision on these motions. The court dismissed the claims related to TVA's decision to build and operate the ash pond, the claims related to TVA's recovery and remediation activities, and the demands for punitive damages and a jury trial. The court denied TVA's motion with regard to claims concerning TVA's use, maintenance, and upkeep of the ash pond, along with the inverse condemnation claims raised by certain of the plaintiffs. TVA is the sole defendant in all suits but one proposed class action, and the plaintiffs in that case have named several TVA employees as defendants. On March 24, 2010, the court dismissed these employees from the case. Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly owned but self-funded United States government corporation, mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914 megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Schedule for Oral Arguments in Petition Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments in Tennessee Valley Authority's petition for rehearing for the week of May 24, 2010, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In April 2006, TVA was added as a defendant to a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi residents allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil company trade association, three large chemical companies and a chemical trade association, and 31 large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages among other relief. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit decided that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims, and that none of these claims present political questions, but also concluded that their unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy claims must be dismissed for standing reasons. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment in part, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in part, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. TVA and the other defendants filed a petition seeking a rehearing by the entire Fifth Circuit, which the Fifth Circuit granted, vacating the lower court's decision. Oral argument before the entire Fifth Circuit is scheduled for the week of May 24, 2010. Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly owned but self-funded United States government corporation, mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914 megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Six TVARS Directors Face Suit in Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ Six current members of Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System's Board of Directors face a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, according to Tennessee Valley Authority's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On March 5, 2010, eight current and former participants in and beneficiaries of the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System (TVARS) filed suit against the six current members of the TVARS Board of Directors. The lawsuit challenges the TVARS Board's decision to: (1) reduce the calculation for cost of living adjustment benefits for calendar years 2010 through 2013, (2) reduce the interest crediting rate for the fixed fund accounts, (3) increase the eligibility age to receive COLAs to age 60, and (4) suspend the TVA contribution requirements for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. The plaintiffs allege that the amendments violated the TVARS Board members' fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs (and the purported class) and the plaintiffs' contractual rights, among other claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, an order directing the TVARS Board to rescind the amendments, and other relief. Another group may file a similar lawsuit. Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly owned but self-funded United States government corporation, mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914 megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region. VISTAPRINT NV: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Dismissed Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs of the dismissal of a consolidated complaint against VistaPrint, N.V., remains pending in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On July 29, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Vistaprint Corp., Vistaprint USA, Inc., Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive Marketing, LLC. Adaptive Marketing, LLC is a Vertrue, Inc., company that provides subscription-based membership discount programs, including programs that are offered on the company's Vistaprint.com website. The Texas Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated, among other statutes, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices- Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Theft Liability Act, in connection with certain membership discount programs offered to the company's customers on the company's Vistaprint.com website. The Texas Complaint also seeks recovery for unjust enrichment, conversion, and similar common law claims. Subsequent to the filing of the Texas complaint, in July, August and September 2008, several nearly identical purported class action lawsuits were filed in these U.S. District Court's: (a) District of New Jersey, (b) Southern District of Alabama, (c) District of Nevada, (d) District of Massachusetts, and (e) District of Florida, against the same Defendants, and in one case Vistaprint Limited, on behalf of different plaintiffs. The complaints in each of these nearly identical lawsuits include substantially the same purported Federal and common law claims as the Texas Complaint but contain different state law claims. In addition, on Aug. 28, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit asserting substantially the same Federal and common law claims as the Texas Complaint, but containing a state law claim under the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, was filed by a different plaintiff in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against Vistaprint Limited, Vistaprint USA, Inc. and the Vertrue Defendants. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs in each action claim that after ordering products on the company's Vistaprint.com website they were enrolled in certain membership discount programs operated by the Vertrue Defendants and that monthly subscription fees for the programs were subsequently charged directly to the credit or debit cards they used to make purchases on Vistaprint.com, in each case purportedly without their knowledge or authorization. The plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed to disclose to them that the credit or debit card information they provided to make purchases on Vistaprint.com would be disclosed to the Vertrue Defendants and would be used to pay for monthly subscriptions for the membership discount programs. The plaintiffs have requested that the Defendants be enjoined from engaging in the practices complained of by the plaintiffs. They also are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, including statutory and punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post- judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs for the purported class. In response to opposing motions filed by the plaintiffs and the Defendants, on Dec. 11, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all of the outstanding cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for coordinated pretrial proceedings. As a result of the ruling of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, on March 2, 2009, four of the existing plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On April 17, 2009, Vistaprint USA, Incorporated filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On Aug. 31, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed all of the claims against the Defendants and ruled on substantive grounds that the Defendants had not violated any of the statutes or common law claims cited by the plaintiffs. In September 2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas. VistaPrint, N.V. -- http://www.vistaprint.com-- is an online provider of coordinated portfolios of marketing products and services to small businesses globally. The company offers a range of products and services ranging from printed business cards, brochures and post cards to apparel, invitations and announcements, holiday cards, calendars, creative design services, copywriting services, direct mail services, promotional gifts, signage, Website design and hosting services, and e-mail marketing services. The company has automated and integrated the design and production process, from design conceptualization to product shipment and service delivery. ********* 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, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy 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 * * *