/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100602.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 2, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 107 Headlines AIR FRANCE 358: Canadian Appeals Court to Review Settlement Today ALLIED MEDICAL: Sued in Ga. Over Unaccredited Sonography Program AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Defends Suits of SAI's Sale of Interests BELO CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Payment Violations Suit CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Amador" and "Adams" Suits CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Lilley" Suit in Illinois CAREER EDUCATION: Class Certified in "Schuster" Lawsuit CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Vasquez" Suit in California CARTER'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit in Georgia CARTER'S INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Two Suits CONVERGYS CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Intervoice Suit Pending DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Two New Suits Over Hertz Deal EUROPEAN AIR AUTHORITIES: Airlines Sue to Recoup Ash Cloud Losses EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages GOOGLE INC: Suit Complains About Google Street View Technology GOOGLE INC: Sued for Using Street View to Intercept Personal Data HAWK CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending JUNIPER NETWORKS: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement KENT STEWART: Iowa Businessman Faces Concrete Price-Fixing Suit KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Croul" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif. MAGIC BROADCASTING: Accused of Not Paying Overtime to Workers MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois MOTOROLA INC: Court Okays Filing of Second Amended Complaint PACIFIC COMMUNITY: Notice of Settlement of ATM Fee Class Action PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Merger QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Right-of-Way Suits QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Motion Pending ST. JUDE: Makes $7.8 Million in Payments for Two Settlements ST. JUDE: Trial in Ontario Silzone-Related Suit Ongoing ST. JUDE: Faces Securities Suit in Minnesota TACO BELL: Accused of in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Proper Wages TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal on Certification Denial Remains Pending TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico Court Dismisses Suit VIRGINIA: Suit Complains About Refusal to Enforce D.C. Judgments WILLIAMS COS: Continues to Defend Colorado Royalties Litigation WILLIAMS COS: Two Midstream Subsidiaries Remain Defendants ********* AIR FRANCE 358: Canadian Appeals Court to Review Settlement Today ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Tyler at the Toronto Star reports that a $12 million settlement for passengers injured in the crash of Air France flight 358 is before the Ontario Court of Appeal today. Air traffic control agency NAV Canada, which faces potential liability for mental damages suffered by those on board, says it was prejudiced by the terms of the settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by passengers against Air France, Airbus S.A.S. and evacuation equipment maker Goodrich Corp. The settlement, approved last December, prevents NAV Canada from conducting any further pre-trial questioning of the other defendants. NAV Canada was also named in the lawsuit but wasn't part of the settlement. Meanwhile, in court documents, lawyers for 184 passengers in the class action accuse NAV Canada of "scandalous" conduct for alleging they entered into a secret pact with Air France and the defendants who settled, which would see a portion of any damages paid by NAV Canada funneled back to them. ALLIED MEDICAL: Sued in Ga. Over Unaccredited Sonography Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims the Atlanta-based Institute of Allied Medical Professions lured 100 students into its program in Diagnostic Medical Sonography with false promises of accreditation. Students say classes were delayed for so long that some had to start paying off their student loans before the classes even started, and when they graduated they found that the program was unaccredited. The complaint in Fulton County Superior Court claims the Institute has accepted about 100 students into its diagnostic sonography program since 2003. For their $2,500 tuition, students were promised 851 classroom hours and 1,000 hours of clinical internships, the class claims. The Institute promised that the program would be accredited by the time the students graduated, according to the complaint. The class claims that while they attended classes the school showed them materials that allegedly showed the accreditation process was under way. And they claim that the Institute falsely promised that if they graduated before the accreditation was complete, the accreditation would retroactively apply to them. But that's not what happened, the students say. They say they didn't get what they were promised even while they were in school: classes began 6 to 12 months late; more than 851 hours were required to complete the courses; and they didn't get their promised 1,000 hours of clinical internship either. Some students say they had to start paying off their student loans before the courses began. And when they graduated, they found that the program had not been accredited. The class claims that despite its promises, the Institute knew its students would not be able to take the state certification examination without a 4-year degree and without working for at least a year as a sonographer. Most of the 11 named plaintiffs do not have a 4-year degree. The class demands punitive damages for breach of contract, bad faith, negligence and unjust enrichment. A copy of the Complaint in Burgess, et al. v. Institute of Allied Medical Professions, Case No. 2010CV186071 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/28/GaSchool.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter D. Copeland, Esq. PETER D. COPELAND, P.C. P.O. Box 448 Clarkston, GA 30021 Telephone: 404-299-2444 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Defends Suits of SAI's Sale of Interests -------------------------------------------------------------- Ameriprise Financial, Inc., continues to defend putative class action lawsuits in connection with the sale of private placement interests by its subsidiary Securities America, Inc., according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests (Medical Capital Holdings, Inc./Medical Capital Corporation and affiliated corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and affiliated corporations) sold by the company's subsidiary Securities America, Inc. (SAI) were placed into receivership, which has resulted in the filing of several putative class action lawsuits and numerous arbitrations naming both SAI and Ameriprise Financial as well as related regulatory inquiries and actions. The putative class actions and arbitrations generally allege violations of state and/or federal securities laws in connection with SAI's sales of these private placement interests. These actions were commenced in September 2009 and thereafter, and seek unspecified damages. Currently, two arbitrations have been scheduled for hearings later this year, in November and December 2010, with the other scheduled arbitration hearings set to begin in 2011. Motions to dismiss have been filed in three of the putative class actions. On Jan. 26, 2010, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed an Administrative Complaint against SAI, and on Feb. 16, 2010, SAI filed an Answer. At this time, an Administrative Hearing in this matter has been scheduled to commence July 20-22, 2010. On April 15, 2010, the four Medical Capital-related class actions were centralized and moved to the Central District of California United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under the caption In re: Medical Capital Securities Litigation. On May 27, 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will hold a hearing regarding centralizing the Provident Shale- related class actions. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a holding company, which primarily conducts business through its subsidiaries to provide financial planning and products and services that are designed to be utilized as solutions for clients' cash and liquidity, asset accumulation, income, protection and estate and wealth transfer needs. The company's foreign operations in the United Kingdom are conducted through its subsidiary, Threadneedle Asset Management Holdings Sarl. BELO CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Payment Violations Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Belo Corp. continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit alleging failure to pay wages. On April 13, 2009, four former independent contractor newspaper carriers of The Press-Enterprise, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, filed a purported class- action lawsuit against A. H. Belo, the company, Press Enterprise Company, and as yet unidentified defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California laws by allegedly improperly categorizing the plaintiffs and the purported class members as independent contractors rather than employees, and in doing so, allegedly failed to pay minimum, hourly and overtime wages to the purported class members and allegedly failed to comply with other laws and regulations applicable to an employer-employee relationship. Plaintiffs and purported class members are seeking minimum wages, unpaid regular and overtime wages, unpaid rest break and meal period compensation, reimbursement of expenses and losses incurred by them in discharging their duties, payment of minimum wage to all employees who failed to receive minimum wage for all hours worked in each payroll period, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No further developments were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Belo Corp. -- http://www.belo.com/-- one of the nation's largest pure-play, publicly-traded television companies, owns and operates 20 television stations (nine in the top 25 markets) and their associated Web sites. Belo stations, which include affiliations with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV, reach more than 14 percent of U.S. television households in 15 highly- attractive markets. Belo stations rank first or second in nearly all of their local markets. CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Amador" and "Adams" Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation continues to defend two suits captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation; and Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On Sept. 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and former students of the California Culinary Academy filed a complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco. Plaintiffs plead their complaint as a putative class action and allege four causes of action: (1) fraud; (2) constructive fraud; (3) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and (4) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon graduation from CCA and CCA's ability to arrange beneficial student loans. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on or about Sept. 3, 2009, that alleges claims for fraud (misrepresentations); fraud (omissions), violations of the Unfair Competition Law and Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs' class is defined as students who enrolled in the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in the Le Cordon Bleu Culinary program and/or the Baking and Pastry program. Students who enrolled in the Hotel and Restaurant Management program are not included in the class. On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class. The Adams action also is styled as a class action and is based on the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempts to plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action. The Adams action has been deemed related to the Amador action and is being handled by the same judge. The Adams action has been stayed. The parties have conducted discovery on class certification issues in the Amador action, but the Court has not yet set a briefing schedule or a hearing date on a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs recently filed a fifth amended complaint alleging the same causes of action, but including new claims based on: (1) violations of the California Education Code, which was recently reinstated by the California legislature; and (2) violations of the Le Cordon Bleu license agreement. The company will be filing a motion to dismiss these new claims. The motion will be heard in June 2010. The parties have also been engaged in mediation sessions and settlement discussions regarding the Amador and Adams actions. The mediation did not result in a settlement but the parties are continuing to negotiate. The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population of over 116,000 students across the world in a variety of career-oriented disciplines. The approximately 90 campuses that serve these students are located throughout the U.S. and in France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and certificate programs. Approximately 40% of our students attend the web-based virtual campuses of American InterContinental University, Colorado Technical University, International Academy of Design & Technology and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts. CEC is an industry leader whose brands are recognized globally. Those brands include, among others, American InterContinental University; Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical University; Harrington College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools, including the International University of Monaco; International Academy of Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon Bleu North America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges. Through its schools, CEC is committed to providing quality education, enabling students to graduate and pursue rewarding careers. CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Lilley" Suit in Illinois --------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation continues to defend the matter Lilley, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., pending in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On Feb. 11, 2008, a class action complaint was filed naming as defendants Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College, Inc. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 5, 2008. The five plaintiffs named in the amended complaint are current or former students who allegedly attended a medical assistant program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville, Illinois, and the class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled in that program. The amended class action complaint asserts claims for unfair conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission. The amended complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions relating to the quality of education, quantity of financial aid, fixed tuition, graduate employability and salaries and clinical externships. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims of unfair practices under the Act and fraudulent omission. By Order dated June 24, 2009, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' fraudulent omission claim (Count IV of the Amended Complaint), and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Illinois Consumer Fraud Act Claim. Defendants have filed answers and affirmative defenses in response to the amended complaint. The parties have begun initial written discovery and the case was set for a case management conference on May 26, 2010. The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population of over 116,000 students across the world in a variety of career-oriented disciplines. The approximately 90 campuses that serve these students are located throughout the U.S. and in France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and certificate programs. Approximately 40% of our students attend the web-based virtual campuses of American InterContinental University, Colorado Technical University, International Academy of Design & Technology and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts. CEC is an industry leader whose brands are recognized globally. Those brands include, among others, American InterContinental University; Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical University; Harrington College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools, including the International University of Monaco; International Academy of Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon Bleu North America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges. Through its schools, CEC is committed to providing quality education, enabling students to graduate and pursue rewarding careers. CAREER EDUCATION: Class Certified in "Schuster" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County has entered a formal order granting class certification in the matter Schuster, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: (1) violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and (2) unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they may earn after graduation. On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in which they simply changed the statement "Claims Subject to Mandatory Arbitration" on the caption to "Claims Not Subject to Mandatory Arbitration" (emphasis added). WCI and CEC filed an answer on June 13, 2008 and WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act; that motion was granted on Sept. 12, 2008. Shannon Gozzi subsequently withdrew as a named plaintiff and is now asserting claims merely as an absent class member, and former named plaintiff Meghan Koehnen's claims have been dismissed. Jennifer Schuster is now the sole named Plaintiff, and she filed a third amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2008. Defendants filed an answer on Dec. 5, 2008. Plaintiffs filed their most recent operative pleading, a fourth amended complaint, on Sept. 2, 2009, and Defendants filed an answer on Oct. 15, 2009. The parties completed written discovery on class issues. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Aug. 31, 2009, and oral argument on the motion was heard on Oct. 29, 2009. On Feb. 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of the UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class will consist of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and Feb. 5, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons. The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery. The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population of over 116,000 students across the world in a variety of career-oriented disciplines. The approximately 90 campuses that serve these students are located throughout the U.S. and in France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and certificate programs. Approximately 40% of our students attend the web-based virtual campuses of American InterContinental University, Colorado Technical University, International Academy of Design & Technology and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts. CEC is an industry leader whose brands are recognized globally. Those brands include, among others, American InterContinental University; Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical University; Harrington College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools, including the International University of Monaco; International Academy of Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon Bleu North America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges. Through its schools, CEC is committed to providing quality education, enabling students to graduate and pursue rewarding careers. CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Vasquez" Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------ Career Education Corporation continues to defend the matter Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation, pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who purchased educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the herein alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the period following the filing of the action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. The parties are engaged in class discovery. The Court has not yet set a briefing schedule or a hearing date on a motion for class certification. The colleges, schools and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population of over 116,000 students across the world in a variety of career-oriented disciplines. The approximately 90 campuses that serve these students are located throughout the U.S. and in France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate degrees and diploma and certificate programs. Approximately 40% of our students attend the web-based virtual campuses of American InterContinental University, Colorado Technical University, International Academy of Design & Technology and Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts. CEC is an industry leader whose brands are recognized globally. Those brands include, among others, American InterContinental University; Brooks Institute; Colorado Technical University; Harrington College of Design; INSEEC Group Schools, including the International University of Monaco; International Academy of Design & Technology; Istituto Marangoni; Le Cordon Bleu North America; and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges. Through its schools, CEC is committed to providing quality education, enabling students to graduate and pursue rewarding careers. CARTER'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- Carter's, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss an amended and consolidated complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. Plymouth Action A shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 19, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entitled Plymouth Country Retirement System v. Carter's, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02940-JOF. The Amended Complaint filed on May 12, 2009 in the Plymouth Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that between Feb. 1, 2006 and July 24, 2007, the company and certain current and former executives made misrepresentations to investors regarding the successful integration of OshKosh into the company's business, and that the share price of the company's stock later fell when the market learned that the integration had not been as successful as represented. Defendants in the Plymouth Action filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws on July 17, 2009, and briefing of that motion was complete on Oct. 22, 2009. Mylroie Action A shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on Nov. 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entitled Mylroie v. Carter's, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-3196-JOF. The Complaint in the Mylroie Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that between April 27, 2004 and Nov. 10, 2009, the company and certain current and former executives made misstatements to investors regarding the company's accounting for discounts offered to some wholesale customers. Consolidated Action The Court consolidated the Plymouth Action and the Mylroie Action on Nov. 24, 2009. On March 15, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed their amended and consolidated complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and briefing of the motion is scheduled to be completed in July 2010. Carter's, Inc. -- http://www.carters.com/-- is a marketer of apparel for babies and young children in the United States. The company owns two brand names in the children's apparel industry, Carter's and OshKosh. Carter's offers multiple product categories, including baby, sleepwear, playclothes and other accessories. The company sells its products to national department stores, chain and specialty stores, discount retailers, and as of Dec. 29, 2007, through 228 Carter's and 163 OshKosh outlet and brand retail stores. Under its Carter's brand, the company designs, sources and markets an array of products, primarily for sizes newborn to seven. Its Carter's brand is sold in department stores, national chains, specialty stores, off-price sales channels, and through its Carter's retail stores. Carter's sells its Just One Year and Child of Mine brands through the mass channel at Target and Wal-Mart, respectively. CARTER'S INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Two Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued a decision affirming the dismissal of two complaints against Carter's, Inc. A class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 29, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company claiming breach of contract arising from certain advertising and pricing practices with respect to Carter's brand products purchased by consumers at Carter's retail stores nationally. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint, alleging breach of contract on behalf of a nationwide class and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claims on behalf of Illinois consumers. On Feb. 3, 2009 the same plaintiff's attorney filed a second, nearly identical action against the company in the same court but in the name of a different plaintiff. The parties filed an agreed upon motion to consolidate this second action with the first case and to stay the need for response in the second case until after the court had ruled upon a pending motion to dismiss the first case. On April 15, 2009, the Amended Complaint in the first case was dismissed for failure to state a claim for breach of contract and for failure to adequately allege damages. The company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the second case on the same grounds, which the Court granted on April 29, 2009. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in each action on May 1, 2009. The appeals have been consolidated and fully briefed. On Dec. 2, 2009, plaintiffs and the company presented oral arguments before the Seventh Circuit. On March 15, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in Kim, et al. v. Carter's, Inc., Nos. 09-2169, 09-2186, in which it affirmed the earlier dismissal of two class action lawsuits against the company claiming breach of contract (putatively on behalf of a nationwide class) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (putatively on behalf of an Illinois class) arising from certain advertising and pricing practices with respect to the company's brand products purchased by consumers at the company's retail stores. There is no further possibility of appeal by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this case is now fully resolved, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. Carter's, Inc. -- http://www.carters.com/-- is a marketer of apparel for babies and young children in the United States. The company owns two brand names in the children's apparel industry, Carter's and OshKosh. Carter's offers multiple product categories, including baby, sleepwear, playclothes and other accessories. The company sells its products to national department stores, chain and specialty stores, discount retailers, and as of Dec. 29, 2007, through 228 Carter's and 163 OshKosh outlet and brand retail stores. Under its Carter's brand, the company designs, sources and markets an array of products, primarily for sizes newborn to seven. Its Carter's brand is sold in department stores, national chains, specialty stores, off-price sales channels, and through its Carter's retail stores. Carter's sells its Just One Year and Child of Mine brands through the mass channel at Target and Wal-Mart, respectively. CONVERGYS CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Intervoice Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling denying class certification in a consolidated lawsuit against Intervoice, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to Convergys Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its acquisition of Intervoice. Several related class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Intervoice during the period from Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000. The plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice as well as certain named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the alleged class members. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the named current and former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger with Brite and the alleged future business projections of Intervoice. They have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court. On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during the Class Period. On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted Intervoice's petition to appeal the District Court's decision to grant Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. On Jan. 8, 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's class-certification order and remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc. The parties filed additional briefing in the District Court regarding class certification and are awaiting the District Court's ruling. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and Intervoice moved to dismiss portions of that amended complaint. On March 14, 2008, the District Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. Intervoice has largely completed the production of documents in response to the plaintiffs' requests for production. On July 7, 2009, the District Court ordered the parties to file additional briefing regarding class certification in light of the Fifth Circuit's more recent decision in Alaska Electric Pension Fund v. Flowserve Corporation, No. 07-11303 c/w 08- 10071, http://is.gd/2drBW(5th Cir. June 19, 2009). On Oct. 26, 2009, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. The named plaintiffs' claims remain pending in the District Court. On Nov. 9, 2009, the Plaintiffs sought permission from the Fifth Circuit to appeal the District Court's order denying class certification. In December 2009, the Fifth Circuit accepted the Plaintiff's appeal and on Jan. 15, 2010, the Fifth Circuit granted the Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification. The case has been stayed in the District Court pending the Fifth Circuit's decision on the Plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of class certification. On Feb. 12, 2010, the Fifth Circuit decided Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. Based on the Halliburton opinion, the company filed a motion to reconsider the grant of permission to appeal. On March 23, 2010, the Fifth Circuit denied the motion to reconsider. The Plaintiffs' brief was due to be filed in the Fifth Circuit on May 24, 2010. Convergys Corp. -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global player in relationship management. The Company provides its clients with solutions to support their customers (Customer Solutions) and employees (human resource (HR) Solutions). It has three segments: Customer Management, which provides outsourced customer care solutions, as well as professional and consulting services to in-house customer care operations; Information Management, which provides convergent rating, charging and billing solutions for the global communications industry, and Human Resources Management, which provides human resource business process outsourcing (HR BPO) solutions and learning solutions. In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its acquisition of Intervoice, Inc. In October 2008, the Company announced the acquisition of Ceon Corporation, a developer of product lifecycle management and multi-play fulfillment software for communications service providers. DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Two New Suits Over Hertz Deal --------------------------------------------------- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., faces two additional suits in relation to its proposed transaction with Hertz, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On April 28, 2010, a purported class action complaint relating to the proposed transaction with Hertz was filed in Oklahoma state court against the company, its directors, certain of its officers and Hertz by Marc S. Henzel, individually and on behalf of all of the company's stockholders, excluding the defendants and their affiliates. The complaint alleges that the consideration that the company's stockholders will receive in connection with the proposed transaction is inadequate and that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. The complaint further alleges that the company and Hertz aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the company's directors. The complaint seeks various forms of relief, including injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the proposed transaction from being consummated in accordance with the agreed-upon terms. The case is styled Henzel v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., et al. (No. CJ-2010-02761, Dist. Ct. Tulsa County). Two other purported class actions have been filed asserting substantially identical claims and seeking similar relief against the company, its directors, certain of its officers and Hertz. The first of these is styled Rosendale v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., et al. (No. CJ-2010-02893, Dist. Ct. Tulsa County) and was filed on May 4, 2010 in Oklahoma state court by Michael Rosendale individually and on behalf of all of the Company's stockholders, excluding the defendants and their affiliates. The second is styled Sinclair v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., et al. (No. 5456, Del. Ch. Ct.) and was filed on May 5, 2010 in Delaware state court by Cynthia Sinclair, individually and on behalf of all of the company's stockholders, excluding the defendants and their affiliates. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through company-owned stores. The company leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide and provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other services to franchisees. It owns DTG Operations, Inc., Dollar Rent A Car, Inc. and Thrifty, Inc. The company has two additional subsidiaries, Rental Car Finance Corp. and Dollar Thrifty Funding Corp., which are special purpose financing entities. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Dollar and Thrifty had 741 locations in the United States and Canada of which 400 were company-owned stores and 341 were locations operated by franchisees. EUROPEAN AIR AUTHORITIES: Airlines Sue to Recoup Ash Cloud Losses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Gould at Reuters reports that budget airline easyJet plans a class action lawsuit to win compensation for flight bans imposed by Europe's air safety authorities following a volcanic eruption in April, its chief executive told a German magazine. "We are already working on it with a group of other companies, including those outside the low-cost sector," Andrew Harrison told Wirstschaftswoche in an interview released ahead of publication on Monday. "It will be a suit from all airlines," he said, declining to give further details. EesyJet declined to comment further. Most of Europe's airspace was closed for nearly a week from April 15 after a huge ash cloud from an Icelandic volcano stranded millions of business passengers and holidaymakers and paralyzed freight and businesses. The flight ban cost easyJet between 50 million and 75 million euros ($61 million and $92 million), said Harrison, who is due to step down as chief executive by the end of June to take the helm at British hotel operator Whitbread. "That was a natural catastrophe and there is no reason why the consequences must be borne by the airlines alone, particularly when it became apparent afterwards that a closure of that size was unnecessary," he said. Lufthansa has also demanded compensation for the ban. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) said the airlines lost more than $1.7 billion of revenues due to the volcano crisis. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Brown, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 2010- 00375163 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 24, 2010), accuses the credit information provider of failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay all wages upon ending of employment, failing to provide itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices in violation of the Bus. & Prof. Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C. 2030 Main St., Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 724-9200 - and - Roger R. Carter, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 2030 Main St., Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-4737 - and - Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 8105 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1070 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 GOOGLE INC: Suit Complains About Google Street View Technology -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that federal class actions in Washington and San Francisco joined German regulators in complaining that while Google sent vehicles all over world to take photos for maps, it was "surreptitiously collecting private information" from unguarded Wi-Fi networks. The class in DC Federal Court claims Google made the intercepted information available to its vendors and contractors. In Washington, the class demands statutory and punitive damages for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Google launched its "Google Street View" technology in 2007, dispatching "specially adapted cars," "Google Trikes" and even snowmobiles to capture images of streets around the world. Along with sophisticated cameras and GPS units, the class says Google equipped its vehicles with "antennas for scanning 3G/GSM and Wi-Fi hotspots." Google has admitted to the German Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information that it picked up Wi-Fi signals and swiped "payload data." The District of Columbia class claims that "Google admitted that its street view vehicles throughout the world were actually capturing . . . data consisting of all or part of any documents, e-mails, video, audio and VOIP information being sent over the wireless Internet." The class seeks damages up to $10,000 per violation, punitive damages, and want Google enjoined from destroying the personal data it has collected. A copy of the Complaint in Colman v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10- cv-00877 (D. D.C.) (Bates, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/28/EveryonevGoogle.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip S. Friedman, Esq. FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES, PLLC 2401 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: 202-293-4175 GOOGLE INC: Sued for Using Street View to Intercept Personal Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Stokes, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Google Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02306 (N.D. Calif. May 26, 2010), accuses the global technology company of using its Google Street View vehicles to record electronic data being transmitted over the open Wi-Fi networks of millions of U.S. citizens, in violation of the Wiretap Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Computer Crime Law, and the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. Mr. Stokes, who uses an open Wi-Fi network at his residence, says that Google admitted on May 14, 2010, that it had been using its Street View vehicles to collect payload data of open Wi-Fi networks since 2007. Payload data refers to the actual data being carried by a network, including the content of websites, passwords entered, and the bodies of emails. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Reis, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP 30021 Tomas St., Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2124 E-mail: sreis@edelson.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC 350 N. LaSalle St., Sutie 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com maschenbrener@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com HAWK CORP: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Hawk Corp.'s appeal on the granting of class certification in a lawsuit captioned Paul Mickle v. Wellman Products Group, LLC, Case No. CJ 2007 06914, is pending in the District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The suit was filed on Oct. 16, 2007. Mr. Mickle alleges violation of wage and hour laws by one of the company's subsidiaries, Wellman Products Group, Inc. The case purports to be a class action on behalf of Mr. Mickle and other allegedly "similarly situated" employees. Discovery as to the class certification is finished. The plaintiffs have been granted their Motion for Class Certification. The company disagrees with the class certification and filed an appeal on Jan. 7, 2010. Briefing on the appeal of the class certification. As of April 12, 2010, all briefing for the compay's appeal was complete. Hawk Corporation -- http://www.hawkcorp.com/-- is a leading supplier of friction materials for brakes, clutches and transmissions used in airplanes, trucks, construction and mining equipment, farm equipment, recreational and performance automotive vehicles. Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Hawk has approximately 950 employees at 11 manufacturing, research, sales and international rep offices and administrative sites in 7 countries. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California gave its preliminary approval to the settlement agreement resolving the consolidated action against Juniper Networks, Inc., according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On July 14, 2006, and Aug. 29, 2006, two purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of California against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors. On Nov. 20, 2006, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04327-JW, and appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on Jan. 12, 2007, and filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 9, 2007. The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock option grants. The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly-traded securities from July 12, 2001, through and including Aug. 10, 2006. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in an unspecified amount. On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007. On March 31, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The order dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim to the extent it was based on challenged statements made before July 14, 2001. The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu. The order upheld all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint. On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise bacquired the company's securities from July 11, 2003 to Aug. 10, 2006 inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including those who received or acquired Juniper Networks' common stock issued pursuant to the registration statement on SEC Form S-4, dated March 10, 2004, for the company's merger with NetScreen Technologies Inc.; and purchasers of Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due June 15, 2008 issued pursuant to a registration statement on SEC Form S-3 dated Nov. 20, 2003. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and the current and former officers and directors of the company, their immediate families, their heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity controlled by any such person. On Feb. 5, 2010, the company and the lead plaintiffs entered into an agreement in principle to settle the claims against the company and each of the company's current and former officers and directors. The settlement is contingent upon approval by the Boards of Trustees of the lead plaintiffs and approval by the Court. Under the proposed settlement, the claims against the company and its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a $169.0 million cash payment by the company. The company considers the proposed payment to be probable and reasonably estimable and, therefore, recorded the cash settlement amount as a pre-tax operating expense in its consolidated statement of operations for the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. On April 12, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and scheduled a fairness hearing for Aug. 30, 2010, to consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement. Juniper Networks, Inc. -- http://www.juniper.net/-- designs, develops and sells products and services that together provide its customers with network infrastructure that creates responsive and trusted environments for accelerating the deployment of services and applications over a single network. The company serves the networking requirements of global service providers, enterprises and public sector organizations, which view the network to their success. The company offers a product portfolio, which spans routing, switching, security, application acceleration, identity policy and control, and management designed to provide performance, choice and flexibility. The company operations are organized into two segments: infrastructure and service layer technologies (SLT). The company's infrastructure segment offers scalable routing and switching products that are used to control and direct network traffic from the core, through the edge, aggregation and the customer premise equipment level. KENT STEWART: Iowa Businessman Faces Concrete Price-Fixing Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Daily Globe reports that a businessman who pleaded guilty to collusion and bid-rigging earlier this week has also been named in several civil cases, including a class action suit, according to court documents. Kent Robert Stewart, Spirit Lake, Iowa, pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing prices and rigging bids for sales of ready- mix concrete beginning as early as January 2008 and continuing until as late August 2009. Stewart was president of Great Lakes Concrete, which had its principal places of business in Ocheyedan and Spencer, Iowa. "During the relevant period, the defendant participated with other persons and another entity engaged in the manufacture and sale of ready-mix concrete, the primary purpose of which was to fix prices and submit non-competitive, rigged bids for ready-mix concrete sold in the Northern District of Iowa," court documents state. "In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant engaged in discussions with representatives of another ready-mix company. During such discussions, agreements were reached regarding the submission of non-competitive and rigged bids. . . ." Concrete sold by one or more of the conspirator firms, equipment and materials necessary to the production and distribution of ready-mix concrete, and/or payments for ready-mix concrete, traveled in interstate commerce, which the courts say was within the flow of and substantially affected interstate trade and commerce. The sentencing agreement recommendation is that Stewart pay a fine of $20,000 and serve a period of imprisonment of no more than six months. Stewart has agreed to cooperate fully with the courts in the prosecution of this case, the conduct of the current federal investigation of violations of federal antitrust and related criminal laws. He will be required to produce all non-privileged documents, including claimed personal documents, and make himself available for legal interviews. He must also testify if called upon to do so in connection with any federal proceedings, grand jury hearings or other judicial matters. Stewart is now a party in several civil suits, including a class action suit on behalf of persons who purchased Ready Mixed Concrete. Because of Stewart and his co-conspirator's unlawful conduct, the suit states, the plaintiffs paid artificially inflated prices for the concrete. Due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, the plaintiff believes class members number in the hundreds. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Croul" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melinda Croul, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Case No. HG10510427 (Calif. Super. Ct. Alameda Cty.), was filed on April 19, 2010. Ms. Croul accuses the department store operator of failing to pay overtime compensation, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to provide itemized wage statements, failing to pay wages upon termination of employees' employment, and unfair business practices in violation of the California Business & Professions Code. On the basis of diversity jurisdiction under Sec. 1332 of Title 28 of the federal statutory law, Kohl's Department Stores, on May 26, 2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-02304 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Heather E. Abelson, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 The Defendant is represented by: Rodney B. Sorensen, Esq. Leila Narvid, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-7860 E-mail: rbs@paynefears.com ln@paynefears.com MAGIC BROADCASTING: Accused of Not Paying Overtime to Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Magic Broadcasting cheated workers of overtime and expenses, in Los Angeles Superior Court. Nicholas Ruggles, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all other current or former employees v. Magic Broadcasting, LLC, Magic Broadcasting Florida, LLC, and Does 1-150, Case No. BC438656 (Calif. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.) was filed on May 27, 2010, and the plaintiff is represented by: Rene L. Barge, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. Alison C. Gibbs, Esq. CLASS ACTION LITIGATION GROUP, APC 4911 Warner Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: 714-884-4922 E-mail: rbarge@class-action-attorneys.com kodenbreit@class-action-attorneys.com agibbs@class-action-attorneys.com MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Motorola, Inc., defend a securities class action case filed by the St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of Motorola securities between Dec. 6, 2007, and Jan. 22, 2008, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the company and certain current and former officers and directors of the company on Jan. 21, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities Exchange Act. The primary factual assertions in the complaint are that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially misleading statements concerning Motorola's financial projections and sales demand for Motorola phones during the class period. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period. The suit is St. Locie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Moborola, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00427 (N.D. Ill.). The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Freed, Esq. Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq. Julie D. Miller, Esq. FREED & WEISS LLC 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602-3455 Telephone: (312) 220-0000 - and - Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 - and - David R. Scott, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT LLP 108 Norwich Avenue Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-3818 MOTOROLA INC: Court Okays Filing of Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint which adds allegations concerning Motorola, Inc.'s accounting and disclosures for certain transactions entered in the third quarter of 2006, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of Motorola securities between July 19, 2006 and Jan. 5, 2007, was filed against the company and certain current and former officers and directors of the company on Aug. 9, 2007. The suit is Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities Exchange Act. The factual assertions in the complaint consist primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for the third and fourth quarter of 2006. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period. An amended complaint was filed Dec. 20, 2007, and Motorola moved to dismiss that complaint in February 2008. On Sept. 24, 2008, the district court granted this motion in part to dismiss Section 10(b) claims as to two individuals and certain claims related to forward looking statements, among other things, and denied the motion in part. On Aug. 25, 2009, the district court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 10, 2010, the district court granted plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint which adds allegations concerning Motorola's accounting and disclosures for certain transactions entered in the third quarter of 2006. Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides technologies, products and services for mobile phones. Its portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories, digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end enterprise mobility products. The company operates under three segments: Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility segment and Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment. In April 2009, the company completed the sale of its biometric business unit, including the Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Sagem Securite. In January 2010, the company acquired SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors. In February 2010, the company acquired BitBand, a provider of content management and delivery systems, specializing in video on demand for Internet protocol television (IPTV). PACIFIC COMMUNITY: Notice of Settlement of ATM Fee Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- PACIFIC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ATM NOTICE of CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Zintel v. Pacific Community Federal Credit Union, Case No. CV09-5517 IF YOU USED THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ATM REFERENCED IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH BETWEEN JULY 29, 2008, AND JULY 28, 2009, AND WERE CHARGED A FEE FOR THE USE OF THAT ATM, YOU MAY BE A CLASS MEMBER. THIS SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. This Notice relates only to one specific Pacific Community Federal Credit Union ATM, located at 18600 Von Karman, Irvine, California, and concerns a lawsuit about charging of fees at this ATM. Mrs. Zintel sued Pacific Community Federal Credit Union under a law called the Electronic Funds Transfer Act on the grounds that the ATM did not have an externally posted fee notice. Pacific Community Federal Credit Union denies Mrs. Zintel's claims but has agreed to a settlement of the case. The settlement includes everyone who was charged a fee for using the ATM to access a personal (not business) account between July 29, 2008 and July 28, 2009. These people are called "Class Members," and the time period that is covered is called the "Class Period." Under the law, the maximum that a group of people may recover in a case like this one is the lesser of 1% of Pacific Community Federal Credit Union's net worth or $500,000, plus any actual damages that the class members suffered. Pacific Community has stated that during the Class Period, there were approximately 168 transactions who were charged ATM fees at the subject ATM(s) during the Class Period. Pacific Community Federal Credit Union has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $18,000 to settle the case. Class Members may make a claim on the Settlement Fund to receive a pro rata share, up to a maximum of $100, so the attorneys believe that a settlement allowing Class Members to make a claim for up to $100 is fair and reasonable. The Settlement Fund will also be used to pay the costs of notifying Class Members of the Settlement and to process their claims, the lawyers who filed the lawsuit their reasonable attorney fee, not to exceed $10,000, and Mrs. Zintel $1,000 for her services as the class representative. On July 12, 2010 at 1:30 p.m., Judge Otis D. Wright will hold a hearing to decide where to finally approve this settlement. YOU DO NOT NEED TO ATTEND. If the settlement is approved, all Class Members will be bound by the resting judgment and court orders, and eligible Class Members will be entitled to claim benefits under the settlement. You have three choices: (1) If you want to receive your pro rata share of the Settlement Fund, up to a maximum of $100, you must submit a completed Claim Form, postmarked by JUNE 24, 2010 to the attention of the Settlement Administrator, at 25876 The Old Road, #304, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381. Failure to submit a Claim Form will mean you receive no money but are still governed by a Release of your rights to sue Pacific Community Federal Credit Union for the ATM fee notice claims raised in this Lawsuit. Download a Claim Form at http://www.morecaseinfo.com/or call Class Counsel at (661) 257-2854 to request a Claim Form. (2) If you do not want to participate in the Settlement and want to retain any right you may have to pursue your claim separately, you must write a letter stating "EXCLUDE ME FROM THE ZINTEL V. PACIFIC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION SETTLEMENT." Include your name and address and mail the letter to the attention of the Settlement Administrator at 25876 The Old Road, #304, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381. Your letter must be postmarked by JUNE 24, 2010 to be valid. (3) If you think the Settlement is unfair, you may object to it by writing a memo stating the specific reasons for your objection and filing it with the Court at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 on or before JUNE 24, 2010 and sending a copy to Class Counsel: Mike Harrison, Esq. 25876 The Old Road, #304 Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 and to counsel for Pacific Community Federal Credit Union: Colleen A. Deziel, Esq. ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP 444 South Flower Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 For more information, visit http://www.morecaseinfo.com/or contact Class Counsel Mike Harrison at (661) 257-2854. DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT FOR INFORMATION AS IT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Second Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., continues to defend a second consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Exchange Act, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Par and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Par between July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006. The lawsuits followed Par's July 5, 2006 announcement regarding the restatement of certain of its financial statements and allege that Par and certain members of its then management engaged in violations of the Exchange Act , by issuing false and misleading statements concerning Par's financial condition and results of operations. The class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 24, 2008, the Court dismissed co-lead plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint without prejudice with leave to re-file. On July 24, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. Par and the individual defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. On Sept. 30, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff. The company and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the Amended complaint. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. -- http://www.parpharm.com/-- is a holding company that, principally through its wholly owned subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., is in the business of developing, manufacturing and distributing generic and branded drugs in the United States. The company is divided into two business segments: generic pharmaceuticals and brand pharmaceuticals. The company is operating the brand pharmaceutical segment under the name Strativa Pharmaceuticals. In the brand segment, Par Pharmaceutical markets brand products under trademarked brand names designed to create an association between the products and their intended uses. In June 2008, the company entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with MonoSol Rx under which it acquired the commercialization rights in the United States to MonoSol's thin film formulation of ondansetron. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Qwest Communications International Inc. continues to defend suits in relations to its merger agreement with CenturyTel, Inc., according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. On April 21, 2010, the company entered into a merger agreement whereby CenturyTel, Inc. (CenturyLink) will acquire the company in a tax-free, stock-for-stock transaction. Under the terms of the agreement, the company's stockholders will receive 0.1664 shares of CenturyLink common stock for each share of the company's common stock they own at closing. From April 22 to May 3, 2010, thirteen individual or putative class action lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts in Colorado and in state court in Delaware relating to the company's pending merger with CenturyLink. The lawsuits were filed by purported Qwest stockholders and name as defendants CenturyLink, the company, certain of the company's officers and members of the company's Board of Directors. The plaintiffs generally allege that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger and seek to enjoin the merger and, in some cases, damages if the merger is completed. Qwest Communications International Inc. -- http://www.qwest.com/ -- offers residential customers a new generation of fiber-optic Internet service, high-speed Internet solutions, as well as digital home phone, wireless service available through Verizon Wireless and DIRECTV services. Qwest is also the choice of 95 percent of Fortune 500 companies, offering a full suite of network, data and voice services for small businesses, large businesses, government agencies and wholesale customers. Additionally, Qwest participates in Networx, the largest communications services contract in the world, and is recognized as a leader in the network services market by leading technology industry analyst firms. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Right-of-Way Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Qwest Communications International Inc. continues to defend several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way The suits were filed against the company on behalf of landowners on various dates and in various courts in California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. For the most part, the complaints challenge the company's right to install its fiber-optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit the company to install its fiber-optic cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. Most of the actions purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named plaintiffs' respective states, although two of the currently pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state classes. Specifically, the Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, and the Indiana state court action purports to be on behalf of a national class of landowners. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. On July 18, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusetts entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement of all of the actions, except the action pending in Tennessee. On Sept. 10, 2009, the court denied final approval of the settlement on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. On Dec. 9, 2009, the court issued a revised ruling that, among other things, denied a motion for approval as moot and dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Qwest Communications International Inc. -- http://www.qwest.com/ -- offers residential customers a new generation of fiber-optic Internet service, high-speed Internet solutions, as well as digital home phone, wireless service available through Verizon Wireless and DIRECTV services. Qwest is also the choice of 95 percent of Fortune 500 companies, offering a full suite of network, data and voice services for small businesses, large businesses, government agencies and wholesale customers. Additionally, Qwest participates in Networx, the largest communications services contract in the world, and is recognized as a leader in the network services market by leading technology industry analyst firms. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs' Reconsideration Motion Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in a putative class action against Qwest Communications International Inc. remains pending. A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of the company's retirees was brought against the company, the Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal district court in Colorado in connection with the company's decision to reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000 benefit. The action was filed on March 30, 2007. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company and other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance benefit at the levels in place before the company decided to reduce them. Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief. The district court ruled in the company's favor on the central issue of whether the company properly reserved its right to reduce the life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to assert additional claims. The court has since dismissed or granted summary judgment to the company on all of the plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is pending before the court. No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Qwest Communications International Inc. -- http://www.qwest.com/ -- offers residential customers a new generation of fiber-optic Internet service, high-speed Internet solutions, as well as digital home phone, wireless service available through Verizon Wireless and DIRECTV services. Qwest is also the choice of 95 percent of Fortune 500 companies, offering a full suite of network, data and voice services for small businesses, large businesses, government agencies and wholesale customers. Additionally, Qwest participates in Networx, the largest communications services contract in the world, and is recognized as a leader in the network services market by leading technology industry analyst firms. ST. JUDE: Makes $7.8 Million in Payments for Two Settlements ------------------------------------------------------------ St. Jude Medical, Inc., has made a total of $7.8 million in payments as part of settlements resolving two class actions, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. The company made a $2.1 million payment in March 2010 as part of the British Columbia class action settlement, and a $5.7 million payment in April 2010 as part of the Quebec class action settlement. The company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product with Silzone(R) coating, which the company stopped selling in January 2000. Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an explant or other complications, which they attribute to these products. Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of special monitoring they allege they need over and above the medical monitoring of all other replacement heart valve patients receive. Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no apparent clinical injury to date. The company has been able to successfully resolve class action matters in British Columbia and Quebec. As part of the British Columbia class action settlement, the company made a $2.1 million payment in March 2010. As part of the Quebec class action settlement, the company made a $5.7 million payment in April 2010. The Quebec class action settlement also resolved the claim raised by the Quebec Provincial health insurer seeking to recover the cost of insured services furnished or to be furnished to class members in the Quebec class action. St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops, manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain. The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced Neuromodulation Systems. The company's principal products in each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-neurostimulation devices. ST. JUDE: Trial in Ontario Silzone-Related Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- A trial in a class action case involving Silzone patients against St. Jude Medical, Inc., is ongoing, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. The company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product with Silzone(R) coating, which the company stopped selling in January 2000. Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an explant or other complications, which they attribute to these products. Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of special monitoring they allege they need over and above the medical monitoring of all other replacement heart valve patients receive. Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no apparent clinical injury to date. The company has two outstanding class action cases in Ontario. The first class action case involving Silzone patients has been certified, and the trial began in February 2010. A second case seeking class action status has been stayed pending resolution of the ongoing Ontario class action. The complaints in the Ontario cases request damages up to CDN2.0 billion (the equivalent of $2.0 billion at April 3, 2010). St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops, manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain. The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced Neuromodulation Systems. The company's principal products in each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-neurostimulation devices. ST. JUDE: Faces Securities Suit in Minnesota -------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc., faces a securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010. The suit was filed on March 18, 2010, against the company and certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between April 22, 2009 and Oct. 6, 2009. The lawsuit relates to the company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated Oct. 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the company failed to disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class members allege that the company's failure to disclose the above information resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated price. St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops, manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain. The company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced Neuromodulation Systems. The company's principal products in each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-neurostimulation devices. TACO BELL: Accused of in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Taco Bell cheated workers of overtime, regular time, and time worked through breaks and meal periods, a class action claims in Stanislaus County Court, Calif. A copy of the Complaint in Hudson v. OCAT, INC., Case No. 653916 (Calif. Super. Ct., Stanislaus Cty.) (Johnson, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/28/TacoBell.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Matt C. Bailey, Esq. Dylan F. Pollard, Esq. POLLARD | BAILEY 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 10th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: 310-854-7650 TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal on Certification Denial 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: (1) McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation; and (2) 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 the company 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 May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 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. 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. 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. No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 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. TRAILER BRIDGE: Puerto Rico Court Dismisses Suit ------------------------------------------------ In a non-final order of the court, Trailer Bridge, Inc., has been dismissed with prejudice against the named plaintiffs from a lawsuit seeking class action status related to alleged anti- competitive activity in the Puerto Rico marine trade, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In an April 30, 2010 ruling by non-final order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted Trailer Bridge's motion to be dismissed with prejudice from the lawsuit. William G. Gotimer, Jr., EVP & General Counsel, said, "We were pleased that the District Court's reasoned order granted our motion to be dismissed with prejudice from this class action lawsuit. We continue to seek ways to provide increased efficiencies and value to our customers with our unique marine transportation system." On April 17, 2008, the company received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico ocean carriers. Company representatives have met with United States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the company's full and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation. The company has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to the subpoena, and its attorneys are in the process of reviewing documents for additional submissions. Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have filed at least 41 purported class actions against domestic ocean carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley and the company. The actions allege that the defendants inflated prices in violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The actions, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a single multi- district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes. On Oct. 21, 2009, in connection with this consolidated proceeding, the Plaintiffs' lead counsel filed an amended class action complaint under seal. Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- provides integrated trucking and marine freight service to and from all points in the lower 48 states and Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic, bringing efficiency, service, security and environmental and safety benefits to domestic cargo in that traffic lane. This total transportation system utilizes its own trucks, drivers, trailers, containers and U.S. flag vessels to link the mainland with Puerto Rico via marine facilities in Jacksonville, San Juan and Puerto Plata. VIRGINIA: Suit Complains About Refusal to Enforce D.C. Judgments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that Virginia violates the Constitution by refusing to enforce out-of-state judgments against Virginia auto dealers. Lead plaintiff Colin Andrew claims Virginia will not enforce his claim filed in D.C. Superior Court against a Virginia auto dealer on the grounds that it "is not bound to honor judgments originating from the District of Columbia courts." Andrew claims Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli and the Virginia Motor Vehicle Dealer Board are violating the Constitution; he seeks an injunction and costs. A copy of the Complaint in Andrew v. Cuccinelli, et al., Case NO. 10-cv-00353 (E.D. Va.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/28/VaCars.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Krumbein, Esq. KRUMBEIN CONSUMER LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 15650 Willow Lawn Dr., Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23230 Telephone: 804-673-4358 E-mail: jkrumbein@krumbeinlaw.com WILLIAMS COS: Continues to Defend Colorado Royalties Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action suit in Colorado over royalties. In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit in Colorado state court alleging that the company improperly calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that the company received from the sale of gas and extracted products, improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations. The company reached a final partial settlement agreement for an amount that was previously accrued. The company received a favorable ruling on its motion for summary judgment on one remaining claim, and the company anticipates trial in 2010 on the other remaining issue related to royalty payment calculation and obligations under specific lease provisions. No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The Williams Companies, Inc., is an energy company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Its core business is natural gas exploration, production, processing, and transportation, with additional petroleum and electricity generation assets. A Fortune 200 company, its common stock is a component of the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Utility Average. WILLIAMS COS: Two Midstream Subsidiaries Remain Defendants ---------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the denial of class certification in a nationwide class action lawsuit where The Williams Companies, Inc.'s two Midstream subsidiaries are defendants, remain pending, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. In 2001, fourteen of the company's entities were named as defendants in a nationwide class action lawsuit in Kansas state court that had been pending against other defendants, generally pipeline and gathering companies, since 2000. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified amount of damages. The fourth amended petition, which was filed in 2003, deleted all of the company's defendant entities except two Midstream subsidiaries. All remaining defendants opposed class certification and on Sept. 18, 2009, the court denied plaintiffs' most recent motion to certify the class. On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial. The Williams Companies, Inc., is an energy company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Its core business is natural gas exploration, production, processing, and transportation, with additional petroleum and electricity generation assets. A Fortune 200 company, its common stock is a component of the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Utility Average. ********* 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 * * *