/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100609.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 9, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 112 Headlines AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motion to Certify Class in Suit vs. 012 Pending AMPAL-AMERICAN: Pre-Trial Hearing in "Tariffs" Suit on June 23 AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends "Anti Spam" Violations Suit AMPAL-AMERICAN: Certification Hearing vs. 012 Set for June 22 AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Defends "Web Traffic" Suit in Central Israel AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends Suit Over Call Center Charge ARC INT'L: Recalls 12 Million Collectable Drinking Glasses BH MANAGEMENT: Sued for Failing to Return Rental Security Deposit CARL ICAHN: Sued for Manipulating XO Holdings' Stock Price CBS RADIO: Sued for Including Non-Compete Provision in Contracts CNH AMERICA: Accused of Refusing to Pay Guaranteed Overtime Pay COOPER COMPANIES: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Suit in Calif. DINEEQUITY INC: Continues to Defend Gerald Fast's Lawsuit GALEN HOSPITAL: Notice of Proposed Settlement of ADA Litigation GENERAL ELECTRIC: Accused of Selling Defective SmartMeters INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Maryland Suit Over Restatement Concluded INTELIUS INC: Sued in Wash. Over Unauthorized Subscriptions LG DISPLAY: Accused in New York Suit of Misleading Shareholders LOMA GARDENS: Charged With Failing to Provide Necessary Repairs M.A. LAW: Accused in Calif. Suit of Abandoning Clients MEDIACOM COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Proposed Discounted Share Sale OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Defends Class Suit in Pennsylvania OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Defends Title Insurance Lawsuit in Texas OLD REPUBLIC: Settles Title Insurance Suits in NJ and Conn. OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Remains a Defendant in 27 Consumer Suits OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Removes Suit to Southern California OLD REPUBLIC: Defends RESPA Violations Suit in Alabama SONY COMPUTER: Suit Calls Final Fantasy XIII Video Game Defective SONY CORP: Rear Projection TV Settlement Hearing Set For Aug. 13 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sept. 13 Fairness Hearing Set in S.D.N.Y. WHOLE FOODS: Accused in New York Suit of Not Paying Overtime ********* AMPAL-AMERICAN: Motion to Certify Class in Suit vs. 012 Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to certify a class action against several international telephony companies, including 012 Smile Communications Ltd., remains pending. 012 Smile is Ampal-American Israel Corporation's subsidiary. In April 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed with various District Courts in Israel against several international telephony companies including 012, with respect to prepaid calling card services. The plaintiffs allege that: (i) the defendants unlawfully charged consumers in excess of the tariffs published by them, (ii) the prepaid calling cards provide an average of 50% of the units of time indicated to the purchasers of the cards, (iii) the defendants deducted from the prepaid calling card the time spent when a user unsuccessfully attempts to make a call utilizing the card, (iv) the defendants calculated and collected payment not by units of round minutes indicated, (v) the defendants provided misleading information about the number of "units" on the card, and (vi) the defendants formed a cartel that arranged and raised the prices of calling cards. In the event the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed against 012 is NIS226.4 million (approximately $60 million). 012 replied to the motion on April 2009, and the court is currently awaiting the filing of final summaries by the parties before granting its decision. No further updates were reported in Ampal-American's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related. Ampal is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors. Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash flow that Ampal can control. AMPAL-AMERICAN: Pre-Trial Hearing in "Tariffs" Suit on June 23 -------------------------------------------------------------- Another pre-trial hearing in a class action against 012 Smile Communications Ltd., in connection with its monthly tariffs for Internet services, is set for June 23, 2010, according to Ampal- American Israel Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. 012 Smile is Ampal-American's subsidiary. In November 2008, a motion to certify a class action was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel against 012. The action alleges that 012 unlawfully raised the monthly tariffs for its Internet services. The total amount of the claim is NIS 81.5 million (approximately $21.6 million). 012 replied to the motion on May 2009. The motion was scheduled to be heard on March 16, 2010. A pre-trial hearing was held on January 2010. The case is scheduled for an additional pre-trial hearing on June 23, 2010. Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related. Ampal is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors. Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash flow that Ampal can control. AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends "Anti Spam" Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- 012 Smile Communications Ltd., continues to defend a suit alleging violation of Israeli "anti spam" law in the Central District Court in Israel. 012 Smile is Ampal-American Israel Corporation's subsidiary. In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel. Together with the filing of the motion, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restrictive order to prevent 012 from deleting or changing data from its database with regard to the plaintiff's claims in the motion. The motion alleges that 012 has violated the Israeli "anti spam" law by sending advertising materials to its customers. The amount of the plaintiff's personal claim is set at NIS 10,000 (approximately $2,650). The estimated amount of the entire claim is yet to be known. On Nov. 29, 2009, the court granted a temporary order which prevents 012 from deleting or changing data from its database with regard to specific messages which according to the motion were sent by the plaintiff to 012. 012 filed its response to the motion on February 2010. A court hearing was held on March 2010 and the court ordered the plaintiff to notify the Court by May 17, 2010, whether he intends to litigate the claim and the request or to submit a motion to withdrawal. No further updates were reported in Ampal-American's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related. Ampal is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors. Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash flow that Ampal can control. AMPAL-AMERICAN: Certification Hearing vs. 012 Set for June 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to certify a class action against 012 Smile Communications Ltd., in relation to its collection expenses charged to customers, is set for June 22, 2010, according to Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2009. 012 is Ampal-American's subsidiary. In November 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012 with the Tel-Aviv District Court in Israel. The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully charges its customers who do not pay their debts on time with collection expenses. The estimated amount of the entire claim is NIS 21.75 Million (approximately $5.9 million). 012 has not yet replied to the motion. The motion is scheduled to be heard on June 22, 2010. Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related. Ampal is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors. Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash flow that Ampal can control. AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Defends "Web Traffic" Suit in Central Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------- 012 Smile Communications Ltd., continues to defend a suit alleging that its unlawfully intervenes in web traffic. 012 is Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s subsidiary. In December 2009, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012 with the Central District Court in Israel. The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully intervenes with web traffic, especially as it relates to Peer to Peer websites. The estimated amount of the entire claim is NIS 40 Million (approximately $10.8 million). 012 has not yet replied to the motion. No further updates were reported in Ampal-American's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related. Ampal is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors. Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash flow that Ampal can control. AMPAL-AMERICAN: 012 Smile Defends Suit Over Call Center Charge -------------------------------------------------------------- 012 Smile Communications Ltd., is defending a suit relating to charging customers when placing calls to 012's support center, according to Ampal-American Israel Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. 012 is Ampal-American's subsidiary. In January 2010, a motion to certify a class action was filed against 012, 012's subsidiary, 012 Telecom Ltd., and others with the Central District Court in Israel. The motion alleges that 012 unlawfully charges its customers when placing calls to 012's support center. The total amount of the action against 012 and its subsidiary is approximately NIS 48.6 million (approximately $13 million). 012's response to the motion is due by July 1, 2010. Ampal-American Israel Corporation -- http://www.ampal.com/-- and its subsidiaries acquire interests primarily in businesses located in the State of Israel or that are Israel-related. Ampal is seeking opportunistic situations in a variety of industries, with a focus on energy, chemicals, communication and related sectors. Ampal's goal is to develop or acquire majority interests in businesses that are profitable and generate significant free cash flow that Ampal can control. ARC INT'L: Recalls 12 Million Collectable Drinking Glasses ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with ARC International, of Millville, NJ., announced a voluntary recall of about 12 million "Shrek Forever After 3D" Collectable Drinking Glasses. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The designs on the glasses contain cadmium. Long term exposure to cadmium can cause adverse health effects. No injuries or incidents have been reported. The "Shrek Forever After 3D" collectable drinking glass are 16 ounce glasses that came in four designs, Shrek, Fiona, Puss n' Boots, and Donkey. This recall involves the "Shrek Forever After 3D"collectable drinking glass are 16 ounce glasses that came in four designs, Shrek, Fiona, Puss n' Boots, and Donkey. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10257.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and sold exclusively at McDonald's restaurants nationwide from May 2010 into June 2010 for about $2. McDonald's is asking consumers to immediately stop using the glass out of an abundance of caution. Visit http://www.mcdonalds.com for additional instructions on how to obtain a full refund. For additional information, contact McDonald's toll-free at (800) 244-6227 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website at http://www.mcdonalds.com/ BH MANAGEMENT: Sued for Failing to Return Rental Security Deposit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Orozco, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BH Management Services Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-23127 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 1, 2010), accuses the apartment management company of refusing to return Ms. Orozco's security deposit or interest on her security deposit, in violation of the Illinois Security Deposit Return Act ("ISDRA") and the Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act. ("ISDIA"). The ISDIA requires a lessor of residential real property, containing 25 or more units, to pay security deposit interest within 30 days after the end of each 12-month rental period, except when the lessee is in default under the terms of the lease. ISDRA provides that a lessor of residential real property, containing 5 or more units, may not withhold any part of a security deposit as compensation for property damage, unless he has furnished to the lessee an itemized statement of the damage allegedly caused and the estimated or actual cost of the repairs. If no statement is furnished, the lessor is required to return the security deposit in full within 45 days of the date that the lessee vacated the premises. Between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2010, Ms. Orozco leased from BH Management Services, Apartment 110 at the residential apartment building at 427 E. Seegers Rd. in Arlington Heights, County of Cook. Ms. Orozco says she was not in default when she moved out March 31, 2010. Ms Orozco further says BH Management Services kept her security deposit for alleged damage to property despite not providing a statement of the estimated cost of the damage allegedly caused as required under ISDRA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775-1015 CARL ICAHN: Sued for Manipulating XO Holdings' Stock Price ---------------------------------------------------------- Youlu Zheng, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 650499/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. June 2, 2010), accuses the Chairman of the Board and controlling shareholder of XO Holdings, Inc., and other individual defendants of manipulating XO Holdings' stock price at the expense of the Company's minority shareholders, in breach of their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders. Mr. Zheng is a minority stockholder of XO Holdings. XO Holdings is a leading facilities-based, competitive telecommunications services provider. Mr. Zheng says that Mr. Icahn, through related entities, attempted several times to acquire a portion of the Company that he does not already own for inadequate consideration, and that each time his attempt failed, he deliberately manipulated the Company's EBITDA and depressed the stock price in order to reach 80% ownership and take the Company's net operating losses ("NOLs") for his own benefit. Under the tax laws, a shareholder who owns 80% or more of a company may use its NOLs to reduce the tax burden on other, profitable companies, in which the shareholder holds more than an 80% interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur N. Abbey, Esq. Judith L. Spanier, Esq. Stephanie Amin-Giwner, Esq. ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 889-3700 CBS RADIO: Sued for Including Non-Compete Provision in Contracts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Murphy, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CBS Radio East Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-23039 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 1, 2010), accuses CBS Radio of including non-compete and other restrictive covenants limiting broadcasting industry employees' right to seek employment upon termination or expiration of their employment contracts, in violation of Illinois statute 820 ILCS 17/10. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucas M. Fuksa, Esq. FUKSA KHORSHID, LLC 70 W. Erie, 2nd Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 266-2221 CNH AMERICA: Accused of Refusing to Pay Guaranteed Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Headley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CNH America LLC, Case No. 2010-L-006367 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 1, 2010), asserts breach of contract, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act claims. Mr. Headley says the agricultural equipment manufacturer required depot personnel to carry a cell phone with them 24 hours, 7 days a week, guaranteeing 4 hours overtime seven days a week whether or not employees handled a call. Mr. Headley says that CNH America has refused to pay him the overtime pay he has earned. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marty Denis, Esq. Samantha Seberg, Esq. BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP 525 W. Monroe, Suite 2360 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 648-5570 COOPER COMPANIES: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Cooper Companies, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the consolidated class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC, against the Company,cA. Thomas Bender, its Chairman of the Board and a director, Robert S. Weiss, its Chief Executive Officer and a director, and John D. Fruth, a former director. On May 19, 2006, the Court consolidated this action and two related actions under the heading In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation and selected a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31, 2006. The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities between July 28, 2004, and Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who received company securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular Sciences, Inc. in the January 2005 merger pursuant to which the company acquired Ocular. In addition to the company, Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth, the consolidated complaint named as defendants several of the Company's other current officers and directors and former officers. On July 13, 2007, the Court granted Cooper's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to state a valid claim. On Aug. 9, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. In addition to the company, the amended consolidated complaint names as defendants Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Fruth, Steven M. Neil, the company's former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Gregory A. Fryling, CooperVision's former President and Chief Operating Officer. The amended consolidated complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, contending that the defendants made misstatements concerning the Biomedics(R) product line, sales force integration following the merger with Ocular, the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses and financial projections. The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the company improperly accounted for assets acquired in the Ocular merger by improperly allocating $100 million of acquired customer relationships and manufacturing technology to goodwill (which is not amortized against earnings) instead of to intangible assets other than goodwill (which are amortized against earnings), that the company lacked appropriate internal controls and issued false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications. On Oct. 23, 2007, the Court granted in-part and denied in-part Cooper and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the claims relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications, the company's financial projections and the Company's accounting of assets acquired in the Ocular merger. The Court denied the motion as to the claims related to alleged false statements concerning the Biomedics product line, sales force integration and the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses. On Nov. 28, 2007, the Court dismissed all claims against Mr. Fruth. On Dec. 3, 2007, the company and Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Neil and Fryling answered the amended consolidated complaint. On April 8, 2008, the Court granted a motion by Mr. Neil for judgment on the pleadings as to him. On Oct. 20, 2009, the Court reaffirmed that Plaintiffs' financial projection claims had been dismissed in its earlier rulings. On Jan. 6, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The certified class consists of those persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Cooper common stock between July 28, 2004, and Nov. 21, 2005. Discovery in this matter has closed. Cooper and the individual defendants filed summary judgment motions on Dec. 21, 2009. On Feb. 2, 2010, the Court vacated the pre-trial and trial dates while it considered the summary judgment motions. On March 4, 2010, the Court denied in substantial part the motions for summary judgment. Court ordered settlement efforts have not been successful. The company reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the consolidated class action brought on behalf of a class of stockholders who purchased common stock of the company during the period from July 28, 2004 through Nov. 21, 2005. The company will record, in its quarter ended April 30, 2010, a charge in the amount of $27.0 million for the settlement. The settlement is subject to the completion of a final written settlement agreement and court approval. The Cooper Companies, Inc. -- http://www.coopercos.com/-- manufactures and markets specialty healthcare products through its CooperVision and CooperSurgical units. Corporate offices are in Pleasanton, California. CooperVision, Inc., develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of contact lenses for the worldwide vision correction market. Headquartered in Pleasanton, CA, it manufactures in: Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico; Norfolk, VA; Rochester, NY; Adelaide, Australia; and Hamble and Hampshire, UK. CooperSurgical, Inc. develops, manufactures and markets medical devices, diagnostic products and surgical instruments and accessories used primarily by gynecologists and obstetricians. Its major manufacturing and distribution facilities are in Trumbull, CT, Pasadena, CA, and Stafford, TX. DINEEQUITY INC: Continues to Defend Gerald Fast's Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- DineEquity, Inc., continues to defend the matter Gerald Fast v. Applebee's International, 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. The company is currently defending a collective action filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act in which named plaintiffs claim that tipped workers in company restaurants perform excessive amounts of non-tipped work for which they should be compensated at the minimum wage. The court has conditionally certified a nationwide class of servers and bartenders who have worked in company-operated Applebee's restaurants since June 19, 2004. Unlike a class action, a collective action requires potential class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out." On Feb. 12, 2008, 5,540 opt-in forms were filed with the court. In cases of this type, conditional certification of the plaintiff class is granted under a lenient standard. On Jan. 15, 2009, the company filed a motion seeking to have the class de-certified and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, both of which were denied by the court. The parties stipulated to a bench trial which was set to begin on Sept. 8, 2009 in Jefferson City, Missouri. Just prior to trial, however, the court vacated the trial setting in order to submit key legal issues to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for review on interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the interlocutory appeal. According to the current schedule, briefing will be complete mid- August 2010. No date has been set for oral argument. Based in Glendale, California, DineEquity, Inc. -- http://www.dineequity.com/-- through its subsidiaries, franchises and operates restaurants under the Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar and IHOP brands. With more than 3,450 restaurants combined, DineEquity is the largest full-service restaurant company in the world. GALEN HOSPITAL: Notice of Proposed Settlement of ADA Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2), INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO SEEK, HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD, SERVICE, PROGRAM, FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION OF THE FACILITIES OF GALEN HOSPITAL ALASKA, INC. You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the Facilities of Galen Hospital Alaska, Inc. d/b/a Alaska Regional Hospital. This Notice is to inform you of facts which affect your legal rights. SUMMARY OF THE LAWSUIT A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc., et al. v. Ambulatory Surgery Center Group, Ltd., et al., Case No. 99-0109- CIV-GARBER, is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida involving disability access at the facilities of Galen Hospital Alaska, Inc. ("Medical Center"). The complaint alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals, including individuals with mobility, visual, or hearing impairments, that the Medical Center is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint alleges that the Medical Center has failed to provide equal access for persons with disabilities to the Medical Center's facilities, because numerous physical, communication, structural, and program barriers exist at the Medical Center. The Medical Center has denied these allegations. By entering into a settlement of this action, the Medical Center does not admit or imply that it engaged in any wrongful action or inaction, or damages or injured anyone in any fashion. This lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action. The Named Plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their counsel are Miguel M. de la O and David E. Marko of the law firm de la O, Marko, Magolnick & Leyton. Those lawyers serve as counsel for the class. The Medical Center is represented by Elizabeth Rodriguez of the law firm Ford & Harrison LLP. DEFINITION OF THE CLASS You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will seek access to or use of any facility of Medical Center. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The named plaintiffs and the Medical Center have reached a proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit as to the Medical Center. The United States District Court has preliminarily approved that settlement, although the Court has made no findings and offers no o pinion with respect to the merits of the settlement. The proposed settlement provides in substances that the Medical Center will make modifications and alterations to its Facilities, including public restrooms, paths of travel, parking, and other public areas within the facilities, with the express purpose of improving and/or providing equal access to and usability of the Facilities by persons with disabilities. No money damages are to be paid to members of the class. PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT Court Hearing. On August 5, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., the court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Courtroom Four, 10th Floor, 99 N.E. 4th Street, Miami, Florida 33132, to determine whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable and should be given Final Approval, and to consider the application of Named Plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and costs. Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your objections and a special hearing will be scheduled on a date to be determined by the Court. To be considered by the Court, however, any objections to the final approval of the settlement must state the basis for the objection and must be timely filed in writing, along with all other papers or briefs the objector wishes the Court to consider, with the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33128, and served upon Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant on or before July 9, 2010 ("Cutoff Date"). All objections must include at the top of the document the case name, the case number, and the name of the Defendant to whom the objections relate. If any attorney will be representing an individual objecting to the settlement, the attorney shall file a notice of appearance with the Court and serve counsel for all parties on or before the Cutoff Date. Any member of the class who does not timely file and serve a written objection in the manner prescribed herein (1) shall not be permitted to raise such objection, except for good cause shown, and (2) shall be deemed to have waived, and shall be foreclosed from raising, any such objection. Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the order approving the proposed settlement and a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice as to Medical Center, will be entered on or after August 5, 2010. You should not expect to receive any further notices concerning the entry of such order and judgment, or of the proceedings which occur before such entry. All class members will be bound by the judgment. The judgment will bar all class members from asserting any claims under or related to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations against the Medical Center concerning physical, communication, structural and program access barriers in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement in this matter, all class members are deemed to have waived the protection provided by any state statutes or codes with respect to unknown claims at the time of a general release, and the general release in this action will be effective to forever discharge any claims relating to physical, communication, structural and program access barriers under or related to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, if any, at the Medical Center by a class member at the time of the settlement agreement whether known or unknown to the class member. FURTHER INFORMATION The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are summarized in this Notice. More detailed information about the settlement of the Action, including a complete copy of the settlement agreement, may be obtained from class counsel at: Miguel M. de la O, Esq. David E. Marko, Esq. DE LA O, MARKO, MAGOLNICK & LEYTON 3001 S.W. 3rd Ave. Miami, FL 33129 or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. Please Follow the Procedures Set out Above. Please Do Not Contact the Judge or the Clerk of the Court With Any Question About the Settlement GENERAL ELECTRIC: Accused of Selling Defective SmartMeters ---------------------------------------------------------- William Edwards and Angela Rollings, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. General Electric Co., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02431 (N.D. Calif. June 1, 2010), assert violations of the California Legal Remedies Act and the California Business and Professional Code, also known as the Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment arising out of Defendants' defective SSN transmission technology (the "SmartMeters"). Mr. Edwards and Ms. Rollings say the SmartMeters are defective because the Smartmeters' firmware transmits incorrect electrical usage data in excess of the amount of electricity actually consumed. Mr. Edwards and Ms. Rollings add that the SmartMeters manufacturer has refused to remedy the defect or to compensate for the amount wrongfully charged. SmartMeters record and electrical consumption data from a residence to the utility company, without the need for a utility company employee to read the display of the customer's electrical meter. General Electric and its co- defendants have refused to publicly admit that the SmartMeters are defective. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 - and - Paul O. Paradis, Esq. Gina M. Tufaro, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS 405 Lexington Avenue, 61st Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 986-4500 - and - Brant C. Martin, Esq. WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN LLP 100 Throckmorton St., Suite 550 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 332-7788 INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Maryland Suit Over Restatement Concluded ---------------------------------------------------------- A purported securities class action against Integral Systems, Inc., arising out of its restatement of financial results for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2008, has been concluded, 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 26, 2010. On Dec. 15, 2008, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in Maryland federal court against the company and certain of its current and former officers following the company's announcement on Dec. 10, 2008, that it would restate its financial results for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2008. On Feb. 17, 2009, five individual shareholders referring to themselves as the "Ulrich Group" filed an uncontested motion for appointment as lead plaintiffs and for approval of lead counsel. On July 21, 2009, the court dismissed the case for failure to effect service, apparently as a result of the fact that plaintiffs had not filed proofs of service as of that date. On Aug. 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from judgment requesting that the court vacate the order of dismissal, grant the uncontested motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and enter a joint stipulation and proposed scheduling order. Defendants consented to the relief requested in the motion, which the court granted on Aug. 24, 2009. Pursuant to the scheduling order, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 21, 2009. The amended complaint sought certification of a class composed of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 4, 2008, and Dec. 10, 2008, inclusive. The amended complaint asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, based on allegations that certain statements made by the company during the Class Period were false and/or misleading because those statements failed to disclose that: (1) the company prematurely and improperly recognized several categories of revenue; (2) as a result, the company misstated its financial results during the Class Period; (3) the company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with the company's publicly-disclosed accounting policies and/or generally accepted accounting principles; (4) the company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result, the company's financial statements were materially false and misleading. The amended complaint also includes a purported insider trading claim against one individual defendant. No specific damage amount was alleged in the amended complaint. On Oct. 26, 2009, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on this motion was held on Jan. 19, 2010. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the motion and stated that judgment would be entered dismissing the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court's formal order of dismissal was filed on Feb. 25, 2010. Plaintiffs initially filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2010, but withdrew that notice of appeal on March 29, 2010. The time for filing any appeal from the judgment in this action has now expired and the litigation is thus concluded. Integral Systems, Inc. -- http://www.integ.com/-- of Columbia, MD, applies more than 25 years experience to provide integrated technology solutions for satellite communications-interfaced systems. Customers have relied on the Integral Systems family of companies (Integral Systems, Inc., Integral Systems Europe, Lumistar, Inc., Newpoint Technologies, Inc., RT Logic, and SAT Corporation) to deliver on time and on budget for more than 250 satellite missions. The company's dedication to customer service has solidified long-term relationships with the U.S. Air Force, NASA, NOAA, and nearly every satellite operator in the world. INTELIUS INC: Sued in Wash. Over Unauthorized Subscriptions ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that when a customer buys a service from the Intelius website, "the consumer is without knowledge enrolled in a subscription-based service with Intelius or defendant Adaptive Marketing . . . often $19.95 per month in perpetuity," a class action claims in Seattle Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Paskowitz v. Intelius, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00909 (W.D. Wash.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/04/Intelius.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Linke, Esq. John Du Wors, Esq. NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 505 Fifth Ave. South, Suite 610 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206-274-2800 - and - Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. FELGOISE LAW FIRM 261 Old York Rd., Suite 518 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: 215-886-1900 - and - Roy Jacobs, Esq. ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd St., 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: 212-867-1156 E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com LG DISPLAY: Accused in New York Suit of Misleading Shareholders --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that LG Display Co., an electronics manufacturer, inflated its share price through false and misleading statements, shareholders claim in Manhattan Federal Court. The case is Son, et al. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04380 (S.D.N.Y.) (______, J.), and the Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Kleidman, Esq. Richard A. Speirs, Esq. Jeffrey Charles Zwerling, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: 212-223-3900 E-mail: pkleidman@zsz.com rspeirs@zsz.com jzwerling@zsz.com LOMA GARDENS: Charged With Failing to Provide Necessary Repairs --------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Garcia, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Loma Gardens, Inc., et al., Case No. BC438704 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. May 28, 2010), seek relief for injuries and damages sustained as a result of untenable living conditions at their rented dwelling units located at 251 S. Loma Drive, in Los Angeles, Calif., defendants' breaches of the implied warranty of habitability, failure to abide by the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, and related negligence and other acts. Ms. Garcia says the property suffered from an insect and vermin infestation, pervasive plumbing and sewage problems, inadequate weather-proofing and heat, and that defendant 251 S. Loma Drive Associates, LLC, the current landlord, failed to abide by City-mandated repair procedures. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J. Bramzon, Esq. Benjamin G. Ramm, Esq. BASTA, INC. 2500 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1111 Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 736-5050 M.A. LAW: Accused in Calif. Suit of Abandoning Clients ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that M.A. Law Group, Wall Street Associates Group, Abbasi & Associates, Hope 4 Homes, Bay Law Group, and Mahan Matthew Abbasi, all of Los Angeles, charge thousands of dollars upfront for "loan modification" services, then abandon clients, a class action claims in L.A. Superior Court. The Plaintiff in Sanchez v. M.A. Law Group, et al., Case No. BC438451 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), is represented by: Patricio T.D. Barrera, Esq. Ashley A. Davenport, Esq. BARRERA & ASSOCIATES, APC 1500 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: 310-802-1500 - and - Michelle Friend, Esq. KNEAFSEY & FRIEND LLP 800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 710 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213-892-1200 MEDIACOM COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Proposed Discounted Share Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Mediacom Communication CEO Rocco Commisso, who owns 87 percent of the voting stock, wants to buy the remaining shares at an unfair $6 a share -- a discount to its recent trading price -- and his board is likely to let him do it, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. A copy of the Complaint in Witmer v. Mediacom Communications Corporation, et al., Case No. 5537 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/04/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 North Market St., Suite 1401 Citizens Bank Center P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Telephone: 302-656-4433 - and - Debra S. Goodman, Esq. Henry J. Young, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. 121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: 610-225-2677 - and - Katharine M. Ryan, Esq. Richard Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: 484-588-5516 OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Defends Class Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC) is defending a class-action suit over title insurance in state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, according to Old Republic International Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. ORNTIC is a principal title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp. The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. The suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Substantially similar lawsuits are also pending against other unaffiliated title insurance companies in these and other states as well, and additional lawsuits based upon similar allegations could be filed against ORNTIC in the future. Classes have been certified in the Pennsylvania action. Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/ -- is an insurance holding company. The company is engaged in the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its business through a number of regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General (property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance segments. OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Defends Title Insurance Lawsuit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC) is defending a purported class-action suit over title insurance in state and federal courts in Texas, according to Old Republic International Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. ORNTIC is a principal title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp. The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. The suit alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/ -- is an insurance holding company. The company is engaged in the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its business through a number of regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General (property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance segments. OLD REPUBLIC: Settles Title Insurance Suits in NJ and Conn. ----------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC) has reached settlement agreements in purported class-action suits over title insurance in state and federal courts in Connecticut and New Jersey, according to Old Republic International Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. ORNTIC is a principal title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp. The plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulators, ORNTIC was required, but failed, to give consumers reissue and refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. The actions seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulatory authorities. Classes have been certified in the New Jersey action. Settlement agreements have been reached in the Connecticut and New Jersey actions and are not expected to cost ORNTIC more than $2.9 million and $2.2 million, respectively, including attorneys' fees and administrative costs. Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/ -- is an insurance holding company. The company is engaged in the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its business through a number of regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General (property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance segments. OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Remains a Defendant in 27 Consumer Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corp.'s principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC), remains a defendant in 27 purported consumer class action lawsuits, 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. Since early February 2008, some 80 purported consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against the title industry's principal title insurance companies, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and title insurance rating bureaus or associations in at least 10 states. The suits are substantially identical in alleging that the defendant title insurers engaged in illegal price-fixing agreements to set artificially high premium rates and conspired to create premium rates which the state insurance regulatory authorities could not evaluate and therefore, could not adequately regulate. A number of them have been dismissed and others consolidated. Approximately 49 remain nationwide. ORNTIC is currently among the named defendants in 27 of these actions in 4 states; its affiliate, American Guaranty Title Insurance Company, is a named defendant in 10 of the consolidated actions in 1 state. The company is not a named defendant in any of the actions. No class has yet been certified in any of these suits against ORNTIC, and none of the actions against it allege RESPA violations. Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/ -- is an insurance holding company. The company is engaged in the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its business through a number of regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General (property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance segments. OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Removes Suit to Southern California ------------------------------------------------------ Old Republic International Corp. has removed a national class action against its subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection Company (ORHP), from the California Superior Court, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, 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. A national class action suit was filed against ORHP in the California Superior Court, San Diego. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who made a claim under an ORHP home warranty contract from March 6, 2003, to the present. The suit alleges breach of contract, breach of the implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of certain California consumer protection laws and misrepresentation arising out of ORHP's alleged failure to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims under its home warranty contracts. The suit seeks unspecified damages consisting of the rescission of the class members' contracts, restitution of all sums paid by the class members, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. No class has been certified in the action. ORHP has removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/ -- is an insurance holding company. The company is engaged in the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its business through a number of regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General (property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance segments. OLD REPUBLIC: Defends RESPA Violations Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------ Old Republic International Corp.'s subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection Company (ORHP), faces a suit alleging violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama, 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. A national class action suit was filed against ORHP in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama. The suit alleges that ORHP pays fees to the real estate brokers who market its home warranty contracts and that the payment of such fees is in violation of Section 8(a) of RESPA. The suit seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages under RESPA. No class has been certified in the action. Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/ -- is an insurance holding company. The company is engaged in the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its business through a number of regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General (property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance segments. SONY COMPUTER: Suit Calls Final Fantasy XIII Video Game Defective ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wolf, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02436 (N.D. Calif. June 2, 2010), asserts violations of the California Business and Professions Code, the California Consumer legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability concerning the damage the defendants' video game Final Fantasy XIII causes when played in conjunction with Playstation 3 gaming consoles. Mr. Wolf says playing Final Fantasy XIII caused their PS3 consoles to freeze and become totally and permanently inoperable, a phenomenon Mr. Wolf says is known as "bricking". Mr. Wolf explains that when a PS3 "bricks", the consumer becomes unable to play any games and watch movies on his PS3 console. None of the defendants has agreed to cover the cost of the repairs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Law Safafi, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: ksagafi@lchb.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 3550-9500 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com - and - J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq. David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com David.Cialkowski@zimmreed.com Brian.Gudmundson@zimmreed.com SONY CORP: Rear Projection TV Settlement Hearing Set For Aug. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Robert PO. Patterson will convene a fairness hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Aug. 13, 2010, in Manhattan to consider a proposed settlement in In re Sony Corp. SXRD Rear Projection Television Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, Master Docket No. 09-md-2102 (S.D.N.Y.), and Cardenas v. Sony Corporation of America, Case No. 09-cv-8952 (S.D.N.Y.). Additional information about the settlement and the litigation is available at: http://www.sony.com/sxrd2settlement/ The settlement applies to purchasers (or gift recipients) to projection devices with model numbers: KDS-R60XBR2 KDS-R70XBR2 KDS-50A2000/2020/3000 KDS-55A2000/2020/3000 KDS-60A2000/2020/3000 and KDS-70Q006 Class Counsel is: William B. Deferman, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 - and - Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON ILTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PC 10026-A S. Mingo Road, No. 240 Tulsa, OK 74133 Counsel to Sony is: John S. Purcell, Esq. Richard I. Werder, Esq. K. McKenzie Anderson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sept. 13 Fairness Hearing Set in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- MEMBERS OF HEALTHCARE PLANS INSURED OR ADMINISTERED BY UNITED HEALTHCARE CORPORATION (NOW KNOWN AS UNITEDHEALTH GROUP), INGENIX, INC., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES; AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER GROUPS WHO FURNISHED OUT- OF-NETWORK SERVICES OR SUPPLIES TO SUCH MEMBERS: A Proposed Class Action Settlement May Affect Your Rights. A Settlement has been preliminarily approved in a class action lawsuit that alleges that the companies described above provided insufficient reimbursement for Covered Out-of-Network healthcare benefits by using the Ingenix Databases and certain policies to make reimbursement determinations from March 15, 1994 to November 18, 2009. If you were or are: (1) a Subscriber, meaning a member of a healthcare plan insured or administered by a Defendant, and received Covered Out-of-Network (OON) healthcare benefits at any time from March 15, 1994 through November 18, 2009, that were processed or reimbursed by the Defendant using the Ingenix Databases or one of the Seven OON Reimbursement Policies listed below; or (2) a Provider or Provider Group, who furnished Covered OON Services or Supplies to a Subscriber at any time from March 15, 1994 through November 18, 2009 and whose claim for payment was processed or reimbursed by a Defendant using the Ingenix Databases or one of the Seven OON Reimbursement Policies listed below, you are a member of the Settlement Class and may be eligible for a payment if you qualify and submit a valid Claim Form. The Seven OON Reimbursement Policies are Defendants (1) Anesthesia Policy, (2) Assistant Surgeon Policy, (3) Co- Surgeon/Team Surgeon Policy, (4) Multiple Procedure Policy, (5) Preventative Medicine Policy, (6) Professional/Technical Policy, and (7) Reduced Services Policy. For a list of United Health Groups subsidiaries and affiliates, you should obtain a copy of the full Notice. A Settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit involving the Defendants. The name of the case is American Medical Assn v. United HealthCare Corp., 00 Civ. 2800 (LMM)(GWG). This Notice is a summary of your rights under the Settlement. To obtain a copy of the complaints filed in this lawsuit, the Settlement Agreement and Amendment to the Settlement Agreement, and the full Notice and Proof of Claim Form (which includes a description of how the money provided by the Settlement will be allocated among members of the Settlement Class), visit http://www.unitedUCRsettlement.com/or http://www.berdonclaims.com/ The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York authorized this Notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a hearing on September 13, 2010 to decide whether to approve the Settlement. What Is This Case About? This case was brought by the American Medical Association, other medical associations, Class Representative Plaintiffs, and Union Plaintiffs, alleging that the Defendants provided insufficient reimbursement for Covered OON healthcare benefits by: using fiawed databases (the Ingenix Databases) in determining reimbursement amounts for Covered OON healthcare benefits; using certain reimbursement policies to improperly reduce amounts for Covered OON healthcare benefits; and not adequately disclosing their use of the Ingenix Databases and certain reimbursement policies in determining reimbursement amounts for Covered OON healthcare benefits. Defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing but agreed to the Settlement to avoid the further expense, inconvenience and burden of this lawsuit. What Are the Terms of the Proposed Settlement? The Settlement Agreement provides for both monetary and non- monetary benefits to be provided by Defendants to members of the Settlement Class. The Settlement establishes a Cash Settlement Fund in the amount of $350,000,000 plus accrued interest. If the Settlement is finally approved by the Court, members of the Settlement Class will be entitled to payments from the Cash Settlement Fund as set forth in the Plan of Allocation included in the full Notice. In addition, as a part of the Settlement and consistent with the terms of the separate Office of New York Attorney General Assurance of Discontinuance, UnitedHealth Group and its affiliates have agreed to certain commitments regarding their reimbursement practices and procedures for OON healthcare benefits. They have agreed that they: (1) will stop using the Ingenix Databases that Plaintiffs alleged are fiawed and, in their place, will use a New Database independently established and operated by a consortium of New York State university-level schools of public health led by Syracuse University; and (2) will contribute $50,000,000 (in addition to the Cash Settlement Fund) towards the funding and implementation of the New Database. UnitedHealth Group and its affiliates will also coordinate with the consortium to create the Healthcare Information Transparency (HIT) Website that will allow the public to access information about the range of provider charges, by geographical region, contained in the New Database for common medical services. The Settlement also provides for the release of claims, and a covenant not to sue, by members of the Settlement Class in favor of Defendants and others, as explained in detail in the Settlement Agreement. Who Represents Me? The Court has appointed Stanley M. Grossman, D. Brian Hufford, and Robert J. Axelrod of Pomerantz Haudek Grossman and Gross LLP as Lead Counsel to represent you and other members of the Settlement Class. You may retain your own attorney as you wish. However, you will be responsible for your attorneys fees and expenses. How Do I File a Claim? In order to be eligible for payment under the Settlement, you must complete, sign, and mail the Claim Form SO THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 5, 2010. A Claim Form is part of the full Notice package you can request, as described below. What Are My Rights? If you wish to remain a member of the Settlement Class, you do not have to do anything. You will be bound by all of this Courts orders. This means you cannot sue any of the Defendants for any of the claims described in the Settlement Agreement. You can file a claim for monetary benefits if you remain in the Settlement Class. To make a claim, you must complete a Claim Form and mail it to the Claims Administrator as explained in the full Notice. Your Claim Form must be postmarked by October 5, 2010. If you do not wish to be a member of the Settlement Class, you must send a letter asking to be excluded from the Settlement Class, as explained in the full Notice. The letter must be postmarked no later than July 27, 2010. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you or your lawyer can tell the Court if you do not like the Settlement or some part of it, as explained in the full Notice. You must file your objection with the Court and serve Settlement Class counsel and counsel for Defendants no later than July 27, 2010. Will the Court Approve the Proposed Settlement? The Court will hold a Final Settlement Hearing to determine if the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and to consider the motion for attorneys fees and expenses on September 13, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. at the United States Courthouse, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. For more information on how to file a claim, exclude yourself or object, or to obtain a copy of the complaints filed in this lawsuit, the Settlement Agreement and Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and the full Notice and Claim Form, visit http://www.unitedUCRsettlement.com/or contact the Claims Administrator at: United HealthCare Class Action Litigation c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 15000 Jericho, NY 11853-0001 Toll-Free Phone: 800-443-1073 Fax: 516-222-0271 Web site: http://www.berdonclaims.com/ E-mail: unitedhealthcare@berdonclaimsllc.com Dated: June 4, 2010 WHOLE FOODS: Accused in New York Suit of Not Paying Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Whole Foods Market Group stiffed workers for overtime, a class action claims in Manhattan Federal Court. The case is Truluck, et al. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04371 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buckwald, J.), and the Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert David Lipman, Esq. LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP 500 North Broadway, Ste. 105 Jericho, NY 11753-2131 Telephone: (516) 931-0050 E-mail: lipman@lipmanplesur.com ********* 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 * * *