/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100625.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 25, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 124 Headlines AIKEN ELECTRIC: Former Customers Sue Over Patronage Capital AMCOR LIMITED: Faces $466MM in Damages Claims in Cartel Suit ARIZONA: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over New Immigration Law Filed AUSTRALIAN BANKS: Clients Question Legality of Exception Fees BIG LOTS: Final Approval of $4 Million Settlement Still Pending BIG LOTS: Discovery in New York FLSA Violations Suit Ongoing BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs Appeal on Certification Denial Pending BIG LOTS: Faces "Avitia" Action in California BIG LOTS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Caron" Action CARACO PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing in Morgan Suit on June 28 EXPEDIA.COM: Pays $123.4MM in Cash, Credits to Settle Class Suit FIRST AMERICAN: 9th Cir. Tells Trial Court to Try Again FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania GOOGLE INC: No End in Sight Yet for Book Case GOLDMAN SACHS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Suit HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Has Initial Approval of $72.5-Mil. Settlement HEALTHTRONICS INC: Settles Suit on Endo Pharma Merger HEALTHWAYS INC: Hearing on Class Settlement Slated for Sept. 24 HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Trial in Class Suit Set for Mid-July 2010 IPO LITIGATION: Judge Scheindlin Requires $25,000 Appeal Bond JO-ANN STORES: $5 Million Settlement Gets Final Approval K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Opposes Plaintiffs' Move to Amend Complaint K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Briefing on Plaintiffs' Appeal Completed K-V PHARMA: Remains a Defendant in 2 Suits Over Product Recalls KENTUCKY TAX: Ky. App. Ct. Revives Delinquent Tax Fee Lawsuit KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Settles Two Drywall Lawsuits LG DISPLAY: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit on Price-Fixing Scheme LOUISIANA: Judge OKs Plaintiffs' Bid for Legal Fees, Subpoena LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Stephens" Settlement Gets Preliminary Nod LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Kohlenberg" Settlement Pact Gets Court Nod MGA ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in Calif. Over 'Bratz' License Rights NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Moose Victims Mull Class Suit NOVA SCOTIA: Plaintiffs Seek Clean-up, Not Money ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL: Class Settlement Taken Under Advisement PFIZER INC: May 2011 Trial Date Set for Zahn's Hormone Drug Suit PINNACLE GROUP: Seeks 2nd Cir. OK to Challenge Class Cert. PRIMFORCE REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Suit; Owners Declare Bankruptcy PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Case Management Conferences Held Wednesday ROBERT GUENTHER: Pro Se Plaintiff Won't Be Representing Any Class SPECTRANETICS CORP: To Pay $8.5-Mil. to Settle Class Suit SUNTECH ENTERPRISES: Recalls 8,400 Baby Walkers TELIK INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Shareholder Class Action Settlement TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers U.S. BANK: Ore. Employee Class Doesn't Recover Legal Fees VALEANT PHARMA: Kendall Launches Class Suit on Biovail Merger VIVENDI SA: Investors Ask Paris Court to Compel Repayment VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Says Multiple Domains for Spam is Okay YTB INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit Re-Filed in Madison County * Adam Savett to Lead CCB's Securities Class Actions Service * Garden City Group Unveils New Corporate Web Site Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belville Case v. 83 Firms Filed June 7 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scudder Case v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Osborne Case v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis Claim v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chancey Claim v. 48 Firms Filed May 14 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Navy Partly Liable in Collins Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Claim v. 47 Firms Filed May 17 in W.Va. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Contractors Fined $100T for NESHAP Breach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durabla Accused of Filing Phony Bankruptcy Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taylor Case v. 77 Firms Filed May 20 in Kanawha ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Local Awarded 6-Figure Compensation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chorleywood Resident's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Preston Pensioner Gets GBP162,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Inquest Rules on Alvaston Joiner's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estep Claim v. 56 Firms Filed May 14 in Kanawha ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Liverpool Cathedral Cost GBP200,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Newton High School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Ex-Electrician's Death Linked to Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Decries Quebec Gov't. Plan to Revive Mine SBESTOS UPDATE: Ventura Apartments, Contractor Facing Penalties ASBESTOS UPDATE: Devon's Council Issues Warnings v. Fly-Tippers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Angell Rejects Reports in Lawsuits v. CSX ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Checking Claims at Holyoke Renovation Job ASBESTOS UPDATE: Princess Elizabeth in Guernsey Contains Hazards ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buckles Legal Malpractice Lawsuit Goes to Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Woman's Claims v. 144 Firms Filed on May 17 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Small Heath Widow Calls For Help in Payout Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holbury Locals to Fight Plans on Hazard Storage ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Cleanup at Ohio Grocery to Push Through ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Seekonk Bldg. to be Tested for Asbestos ********* AIKEN ELECTRIC: Former Customers Sue Over Patronage Capital ----------------------------------------------------------- Former customers of South Carolina electric cooperatives whose patronage capital has not yet been refunded, citing S.C. Code Ann. Section 33-49-460, argue that "cooperative principles to which all South Carolina cooperatives claim to adhere require them to operate at costs [and] to refund revenue above costs to the owner/customer as an overcharge or 'patronage.'" The former customers also complain that the cooperatives favor the interests of current customers, exclude former customers from participating in cooperative governance, and make no attempt to locate former customers, thereby allowing a forfeiture of those customers' capital credits. The allegations are made as to all South Carolina electric cooperatives (other than Edisto), which the plaintiff class argues are necessary parties "since all have interests which would be affected by a South Carolina court's interpretation of the lawfulness and propriety of their bylaws and business dealings with respect to the rights and pecuniary interests of members who are former customers." South Carolina cooperatives have not yet filed any responsive pleadings. The case is Mitchum et al. v. Aiken Electric Cooperative et al. (South Carolina) (2010-CP-02-00206). A full-text copy of the June 11 Legal Alert by James A. Orr, Esq., Jennifer N. Ide, Esq., and Benjamin C. Morgan, Esq., at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP in Atlanta, is available at no charge at: http://is.gd/d0wT4 AMCOR LIMITED: Faces $466MM in Damages Claims in Cartel Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that AMCOR Limited, which received official whistleblower immunity in 2005, was a much bigger beneficiary of an alleged cardboard box cartel than its claimed price-fixing partner Visy Industries, according to figures revealed in the Federal Court on June 21. A class action by customers of the two packaging companies scheduled for trial next year will seek damages of $700 million plus interest of $350 million. Two-thirds of the sum, $466 million plus interest, will be sought from Amcor, and a third, $234 million plus interest, from Visy. The figures are contained in a report estimating the losses caused to the customers written by an expert witness retained by their lawyers, Maurice Blackburn. Amcor was granted immunity from prosecution after approaching the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The regulator prosecuted Visy, which settled the case in 2007 before trial without admitting liability and was fined $36 million. The commission's immunity policy says it will only reward a whistleblower if "the corporation has not coerced others to participate in the cartel and was not the clear leader in the cartel." The policy, which offers immunity to the first party to approach the regulator if the regulator does not already have sufficient evidence, does not refer to relative financial benefits derived by cartel participants. Amcor and Visy deny in the class action that they operated a cartel between May 2000 and May 2005. Amcor disclosed its potential damages, apparently on legal advice about its continuous disclosure obligations as a listed company, in March when it received a copy of the expert report commissioned by the class action, from a professor in law and economics from the University of California Berkeley, Daniel Rubinfeld. Visy, which is unlisted, declined to reveal Professor Rubinfeld's estimate of its exposure at the time. On June 21, the court was told the parties had agreed that the figures were no longer confidential. In a separate development Monday, Justice Peter Jacobson said he would order the customers to produce documents about their own pricing, although not as many as Amcor and Visy asked for. Amcor and Visy want the documents to help a fallback argument they will run if Justice Jacobson finds that they did collude to overcharge. They will then try to prove that their customers suffered no loss because they passed the increases on to their own customers. ARIZONA: Motion to Dismiss Suit Over New Immigration Law Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Arizona's governor Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe Arpaio seek dismissal of a federal class action challenging the state's new immigration law. Gov. Brewer and "America's Toughest Sheriff" claim the complaint from the ACLU, NAACP and others lacks factual basis to show that members will racially profiled when the law is enforced. Mr. Arpaio's motion for dismissal claims that federal law does not preempt the state's immigration law, since the state law does not "replace federal immigration law, but creates state law which mirrors the federal law, thus enabling state and local law enforcement to meaningfully cooperate with federal law enforcement." Mr. Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County, calls himself America's Toughest Sheriff. He claims that class action status is inappropriate since whether S.B. 1070 is declared unconstitutional or constitutional, "it will be so for everyone, not just 'class members.'" Mr. Arpaio claims the plaintiffs "merely speculate in the abstract about potential future harm" and do not provide evidence to show they will or have suffered racial profiling or "disproportionate" behavior. Mr. Arpaio says that before addressing such claims, "the court must know the details of the actual police practices employed in the enforcement of SB 1070 by each law enforcement agency in Arizona." Gov. Brewer's motion for dismissal says that the class's claims that they fear they will be stopped because of their appearance, language or speaking style, are unfounded. Gov. Brewer says the law "expressly prohibits" racial profiling and "may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." But the plaintiffs, the Service Employees International Union, claims its members "will be fearful to attend rallies, demonstrations, and union meetings or to engage in leafleting or other traditional labor activities because of the possibility of being stopped by the police under SB 1070." Gov. Brewer insists the plaintiffs have only a "subjective chill" instead of an "objectively justified fear of real consequences that their members will be arrested or detained by the police based on their expressions of speech." The federal class action claims that Arizona's immigration law "will cause widespread racial profiling and will subject many persons of color . . . to unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures and arrests." The law, scheduled to take effect July 29, requires state and local police to enforce immigration laws and allows them to search vehicles without warrant if an officer has a reasonable suspicion that occupants do not have immigration papers. It also makes hiring day laborers a misdemeanor if the driver or worker blocks the flow of traffic. Gov. Brewer is represented by John J. Bouma with Snell & Wilmer. Pinal County Attorney James P. Walsh and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu also filed a motion to dismiss. At least five lawsuits have challenged the law since Brewer signed it in April. A copy of Intervenor Defendant Governor Brewer's Motion to Dismiss in Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01061 (D. Ariz.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/22/BrewerD.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Bouma, Esq. Robert A. Henry, Esq. Joseph G. Adams, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: 602-382-6000 E-mail: jbouma@swlaw.com bhenry@swlaw.com jgadams@swlaw.com - and - Joseph A. Kanefield, Esq. Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer 1700 W. Washington, 9th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007 Telephone: 602-542-1586 E-mail: jkanefield@az.gov AUSTRALIAN BANKS: Clients Question Legality of Exception Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Morris, writing for The Australian, relates that until very recently, some banks charged customers up to A$60 if the customers became overdrawn, went beyond an agreed limit or made a late payment. As the true cost might have been only a few dollars on each transaction, the legality of these "exception fees" is set to be challenged. Leading the fight against unfair fees is litigation funder IMF (Australia). IMF has been a significant beneficiary of shoddy disclosure and corporate governance practices unearthed during the financial crisis. As the likes of Oz Minerals, Centro Properties, and ABC Learning fell within its sights, the stock became one of the market's better performers last year, rising more than 150%. Underpinning these gains has been a rise in the maximum claim value of IMF's case portfolio to more than A$1 billion. That figure could soon be dwarfed, however, if the company's proposed class action against the banks sees the light of day. Exception fees deducted from customer accounts during the past six years are IMF's target and they totaled A$1.2 billion in the 2008 financial year alone, according to the Reserve Bank of Australia. As IMF's share of any payout has been flagged at 25%, the stakes are high. "It's hard to argue with the company's track record. In its first eight years of operation, IMF has lost only four cases out of 140 matters funded. The proposed class action against the banks is still in its infancy, however. Cases typically take three to four years to reach a resolution and you can bet the banks will put up a fight. So while IMF's litigation pipeline offers strong potential, prospective buyers have the luxury of time on their side," Mr. Morris writes. On May 13, 2010, The Australian reported that law firm Maurice Blackburn said more than 20,000 unhappy bank customers have already signed up to join Australia's largest ever class action against 12 banks to recover allegedly unjust penalty fees. Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy said potential claimants were registering their interest at a rate of 1000 per hour, with 22,000 having contacted the firm as of 12 p.m. (AEST). He said Maurice Blackburn did not expect to file the claim in the courts for at least four weeks and it was hoped the banks would enter into settlement negotiations. Maurice Blackburn's claim will focus on a raft of exception fees charged by banks over the past six years. Mr. Murphy estimated that in the past six years, banks had charged at least $5 billion in exception fees. BIG LOTS: Final Approval of $4 Million Settlement Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc., awaits final approval from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana of a settlement agreement resolving a complaint for $4 million, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. In November 2004, a civil collective action complaint was filed against the company alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On July 5, 2005, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order conditionally certifying a class of all then-current and former assistant store managers who have worked for the company since Nov. 23, 2001. As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the Louisiana matter. Approximately 1,100 individuals opted to join the Louisiana matter. The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion was denied on Aug. 24, 2007. The trial began on May 7, 2008, and concluded on May 15, 2008. On June 20, 2008, the District Court in Louisiana issued an order decertifying the action and dismissed, without prejudice, the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs. After this ruling, four plaintiffs remained before the District Court in Louisiana. On Jan. 26, 2009, three of the plaintiffs presented their respective cases before the District Court in Louisiana. Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January 2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate in the January 2009 action) were dismissed with prejudice. On April 2, 2009, the District Court in Louisiana awarded the two remaining plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately $100,000 plus attorneys' fees and costs, which, on June 25, 2009, were determined to be $400,000. The company appealed both of these decisions. Subsequent to the District Court in Louisiana's April 2, 2009 decision, approximately 172 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed individual actions in the District Court in Louisiana. On Aug. 13, 2009, the company filed a writ of mandamus challenging the District Court in Louisiana's jurisdiction to hear these cases. This writ was denied on Oct. 20, 2009. Since then, the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the January 2009 action and the fourth plaintiff (who did not participate On Jan. 12, 2010, the Louisiana matter was settled for $4.0 million. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and others. BIG LOTS: Discovery in New York FLSA Violations Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery in a civil collective action complaint against Big Lots, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, is ongoing, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees. In addition, the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New York law relating to those assistant store managers working in the State of New York. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On Jan. 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and Order was rendered limiting this action to current and former assistant store managers working in the Company's New York stores. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and others. BIG LOTS: Plaintiffs Appeal on Certification Denial Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County denying class certification in a lawsuit against Big Lots, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the company alleging that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Seals matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. On Oct. 29, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion, with prejudice. On Jan. 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, and the parties will have an opportunity to brief their positions in the coming months. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and others. BIG LOTS: Faces "Avitia" Action in California --------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc., faces a class action complaint alleging violations of certain California wage and hour laws, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Avitia matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages at separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Avitia matter is related to and overlaps the Seals matter. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and others. BIG LOTS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Caron" Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Big Lots, Inc.'s motion to deny class certification in a consolidated suit, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed against the company by a California resident ("Caron matters"). The first was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. This action is similar in nature to the Seals matter, which enabled the company to successfully coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The second and third matters, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company believed these two matters overlapped and successfully consolidated the two cases before the United States District Court, Central District of California. The company also believes the remaining allegations also overlap some portion of the claims released through the class action settlement in the Espinosa matter. On Aug. 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' class certification motion. On April 21, 2010, the Court granted, with prejudice, the company's motion to deny class certification. Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiff remain before the Court. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. Big Lots, Inc.'s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and others. CARACO PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the company's June 9, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. On July 17, 2009 and July 23, 2009, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers. The lawsuits allege securities violations related to the company's public statements on U.S. Food and Drug Administration compliance issues made between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009. On Sept. 15, 2009, the plaintiffs in both of the purported lawsuits filed motions for consolidation of the cases and for approval of lead plaintiff. On Nov. 9, 2009, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal was entered by the Court dismissing one of the two cases, effectively consolidating the cases. On Jan. 13, 2010, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order appointing the lead plaintiff and lead counsel for plaintiff. On Feb. 11, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint, which also names Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 12, 2010, which is still being briefed to the Court by the parties. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. -- http://www.caraco.com/ -- is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and private-label pharmaceuticals to wholesalers, distributors, warehousing and non- warehousing chain drugstores and managed care providers, throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing in Morgan Suit on June 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood at The Madison/St. Clair Record reports that the parties in a long-running Madison County class action over fees charged to mortgage customers are asking for a judge's final settlement approval. Circuit Judge David Hylla will hear arguments in favor of the final approval of the settlement between lead plaintiff Todd Morgan and Countrywide Home Loans LLC June 28 at 10:30 a.m. Mr. Morgan leads a class of mortgage holders who claim that Countrywide overcharged closing costs. Judge Hylla initially approved the settlement Feb. 22. Under the settlement, class members would each receive $30. The class representatives would receive $10,000. The class' attorneys, Bradley Lakin, Esq., Robert Schmieder II, Esq., and Mark Brown, Esq., are asking for $100,000 in legal fees, according to a May 24 motion. Another class action against Countrywide that is also led by Morgan is also set for hearing next week before Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder. The class actions were among a series filed beginning in 2003 by the now defunct partnership between the current LakinChapman firm and that of Freed & Weiss. There has been little action in the 2004 case before Judge Crowder since Freed & Weiss withdrew in 2008. The two suits were filed within a year of one another, part of a series of class actions against mortgage brokers. Both suits allege similar claims that Countrywide charged improper fees and overcharged customers. Judge Crowder oversees the younger of the two suits. The class action before her was filed in 2004. Paul Marks, Esq., represents Morgan and the class in both cases. He may be reached at: Paul A. Marks, Esq. LAKINCHAPMAN, LLC 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229 Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.) Telephone: (618) 254-1127 Facsimile: (618) 254-0193 Larry Hepler, Esq., represents Countrywide in the case before Judge Crowder. He may be reached at: Larry Hepler, Esq. HEPLERBROOM, LLC 103 W Vandalia Street, Suite 300 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-1117 E-mail: larry.hepler@heplerbroom.com Beth Bauer, Esq., represents Countrywide in the case before Judge Hylla. She may be reached at: Beth A. Bauer, Esq. 103 W Vandalia Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 510 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-1200 E-mail: beth.bauer@heplerbroom.com The Morgan case Judge Crowder oversees is Madison case number 04-L-1432. The Morgan case before Judge Hylla is case number 03-L-980. EXPEDIA.COM: Pays $123.4MM in Cash, Credits to Settle Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelli B. Grant, writing for Dow Jones' SmartMoney.com, relates that as part of a class-action lawsuit settlement, travel booking site Expedia.com paid out $123.4 million in cash and site credits earlier this month. The lawsuit, filed in 2005 and settled in 2009, alleged that the company's bundled tax and service fees were excessive and that bundling the charges unfairly prevented consumers from assessing the amount and nature of individual fees. Expedia denies any wrongdoing. Asked by SmartMoney for comments, Expedia responded by directing SmartMoney to its public filings on the lawsuit. Seattle firm Hagens Berman, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of consumers, did not return calls for comment. Affected consumers -- those who paid a bundled tax and service charge to the site for a standalone or packaged hotel reservation between Jan. 10, 2001, and June 11, 2008 -- who filed a claim last year could opt to receive a cash payout of 30% of fees paid, or site credit worth 65%. Those who didn't automatically received the site credit earlier this month. It's available in the "Coupons" section of your account and expires July 31, 2011. "It's not much of an incentive to book through Expedia," says Linda Sherry, a spokeswoman for advocacy group Consumer Action. Only the most die-hard Expedia bookers will see more than a few dollars. But consumers hunting for the best deals may find even that little bit is worth making a booking, says Rick Seaney, the chief executive of deal-tracking site FareCompare.com. Hold off until there are more valuable coupon codes to be used in conjunction. Expedia frequently offers coupons good for $100 off airfare and hotel packages, for example. FIRST AMERICAN: 9th Cir. Tells Trial Court to Try Again ------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit says that the U.S. District Court needs to reexamine some if its rulings in a lawsuit brought against The First American Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, First American Title Insurance Company, that alleges a national scheme by which First American paid millions of dollars to individual title companies and received written exclusive referral agreements in return. A three-judge panel says that the District Court: -- did not abuse its discretion in denying the nationwide class; -- abused its discretion in denying nationwide discovery; and -- abused its discretion in denying a so-called Tower City (Ohio) class. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Memorandum dated June 21, 2010, in Edwards v. First American Corp., et al., Nos. 08-56536 and 08-56538 (9th Cir.), is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100621150 FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- Foot Locker, Inc., continues to defend the suit captioned Pereira v. Foot Locker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Certain of the company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage and hour laws, including allegations concerning classification of employees as exempt or nonexempt, unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and uniforms. In Pereira v. Foot Locker, one of the class actions, plaintiff alleged that the company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In September 2009, the court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action. No further updates were reported in the company's June 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. Foot Locker, Inc. -- http://www.footlocker-inc.com/-- is a global retailer of athletic footwear and apparel, operated 3,785 primarily mall-based stores in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand as of Feb. 2, 2008. The company, through its subsidiaries, operates in two segments: Athletic Stores and Direct-to-Customers. The Athletic Stores segment is an athletic footwear and apparel retailer, whose formats include Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports and Footaction. The Direct-to-Customers segment reflects Footlocker.com, Inc., which sells, through its affiliates, including Eastbay, Inc., to customers through catalogs and Internet Web sites. The Foot Locker brand is the company's principal brand. GOOGLE INC: No End in Sight Yet for Book Case --------------------------------------------- Tom Krazit, writing for CNET.com, relates the Google Books case drags on with no hint of when the six-year dispute might finally be settled, four months after a final hearing was supposed to decide the issue once and for all. Google and the plaintiffs -- representatives of authors and publishers -- agreed to settle the massive case in October 2008 but delays after delays have prevented Google from offering out-of-print yet copyright- protected books in its Google Book Search product. Representatives for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York -- which is handling the case -- declined to comment on whether the matter is even close to being resolved. Google likewise had nothing to share on when the case might finally be resolved, saying it had heard nothing from the court since the final hearing wrapped up in New York in February. "The timing for approving (or rejecting) the settlement has not struck me as particularly unusual, especially given the complexity of the case, the voluminous submissions, and the many forcefully argued positions on multiple sides," said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University who tracks legal matters in the Internet industry. At issue is whether Google will be allowed to display and sell digital copies of books that have gone out-of-print due to lack of demand but are still protected by U.S. copyright law. Google first began scanning such books earlier this decade, announcing plans to create the world's largest digital library in 2003. However, the company was sued by groups representing authors and publishers in 2005, and the case has dragged on ever since, despite the October 2008 settlement agreement. The judge is considering whether the settlement overstepped its bounds in granting the right for Google to offer those types of books in Google Book Search: something Google's competitors and critics argue is a far-too-sweeping use of a class action settlement to essentially create law. The Department of Justice has weighed in on the settlement, initially blocking a first proposal and later voicing concerns that the revised settlement still might raise antitrust issues. In the meantime, the e-book market continues to take off with the success of Amazon's Kindle and the early interest in Apple's iPad. Google has said it plans to open a Web-based digital book store sometime in June or July called Google Editions, which is focused on books that Google clearly has the right to sell either through agreements with publishers or because the works have entered the public domain. With the summer vacation season just starting, it's not clear whether Google's long literary struggle will be wrapped up anytime soon. The New York Times recently reported that the decision could arrive within "months," but the only person who really knows is Judge Denny Chin, and he's not talking. Complicating matters is the fact that Chin was recently nominated and confirmed for a spot on the U.S. Appeals Court, although he remains in charge of the Google case. Given the high-profile nature of the case among authors, librarians, privacy advocates, and the U.S. government, it's likely Chin is crafting a very comprehensive and detailed opinion in anticipation of further review from appeals courts, said Deborah Hensler, a professor at Stanford and an expert on class action lawsuits. She also said she wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court wound up considering this case, although cautioned that predicting the types of cases that will get considered at the highest court in the U.S. can be tricky. GOLDMAN SACHS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Law Office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. between February 6, 2007 and April 30, 2010, inclusive. Goldman is a global investment banking and financial services firm headquartered in New York City. The Complaint alleges that Goldman and certain of its officers and directors failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts which were known, or were recklessly disregarded, in connection with the marketing of synthetic collateralized debt obligation and other products including, among others, ABACUS 2007-AC1, by issuing materially misleading: (i) statements about Goldman's client-focused business model, risk controls and business practices; and (ii) statements made in an effort to downplay profits Goldman made from shorting the housing market. Additionally, the defendants failed to reserve for probable losses stemming from the Company's illicit actions, and thus understated expenses and inflated Goldman's reported financial results. The defendants also failed to disclose that the SEC had opened an investigation into Goldman's activities since mid-2008. If you purchased or acquired Goldman common stock during the Class Period, and lost money on the transaction, you may wish to serve as the lead plaintiff. You may, no later than June 25, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as the lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative that acts on behalf of other class members throughout the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of all class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as lead plaintiff. If you want to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Toll Free: 877-LEGAL-90 E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Has Initial Approval of $72.5-Mil. Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- According to Insurance & Financial Advisor, The Hartford Courant reported that The Hartford Financial Services Group has received preliminary approval on a settlement to pay $72.5 million to resolve a class action suit accusing the firm of keeping millions in fees that should have been distributed to 21,000 accident victims. The Hartford Courant reported that a federal judge in Bridgeport, Conn., granted the initial approval to settle the national lawsuit that dates back to 2005. The suit involved plaintiffs injured and eligible for personal injury or workers' compensation claims from The Hartford Financial Services Group, according to the report. Rather than receiving a lump sum, the Courant reported, The Hartford paid "structured settlements," or payments over time with annuities typically used to provide the payments through its life insurance division, Hartford Life. According to the report, The Hartford told these individuals the value of the settlement, but neglected to mention it would take at least 15% for fees, taxes and profit, the lawsuit alleged and The Hartford denied. A spokesman for the insurer told the Courant it is "confident" each claimant received the amount specified in structured settlement agreements, and is settling the suit "to avoid the uncertainties and costs of continued litigation." Each of the more than 21,000 claimants in the class action suit will receive about $3,300 before lawyer fees and expenses, according to the plaintiff's law firm. HEALTHTRONICS INC: Settles Suit on Endo Pharma Merger ----------------------------------------------------- HealthTronics, Inc., the members of the Board of Directors of the Company, Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., and HT Acquisition Corp. -- as defendants -- entered into an agreement with the parties to the purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed against the defendants in connection with the previously-announced business combination between the Company and Endo Pharmaceuticals. The terms of the agreement provide for a release and settlement by the purported class of Company shareholders of all claims against the defendants in relation to the previously-announced business combination, that the Company would provide additional disclosures in its previously-filed Schedule 14D-9, and that the defendants would not oppose plaintiffs' counsel's application to the court for fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $292,500. The settlement is conditioned on further definitive documentation, court approval, dismissal of the actions with prejudice, satisfactory confirmatory discovery by plaintiffs' counsel, and completion of the tender offer and merger. The Company has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission an Amendment No. 1 to amend the Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO filed on May 19, 2010. A full-text copy of Amendment No. 1 is available at no charge at: http://is.gd/d0B9f The Company also has filed Amendment No. 2 to amend and supplement the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 initially filed on May 19, 2010. A full-text copy of Amendment No. 2 is available at no charge at: http://is.gd/d0Bik If any of the conditions are not met, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and that it and the other defendants have valid defenses against all the claims, but has agreed to settle the lawsuits in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of litigating these lawsuits. HealthTronics, Inc. -- http://www.HealthTronics.com/-- is a urology company providing an exclusive suite of healthcare services and technology, including urologist partnership opportunities, surgical and capital equipment, maintenance services and anatomical pathology services. The Company's product portfolio includes a full line of urology equipment and products, including lithotripters, cryoablation products used for the treatment of prostate cancer, surgical lasers for treatment of BPH, and anatomical pathology services. As a service provider, HealthTronics offers the latest technology in lithotripsy services and prostate therapy services, including BPH treatments and prostate cancer treatments. HEALTHWAYS INC: Hearing on Class Settlement Slated for Sept. 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION JOHN RICHARD BEACH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ) Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-00569 --------------------------- ) (Consolidated) Plaintiff, ) CLASS ACTION ---------- ) ------------ vs. ) Judge Todd J. Campbell --- ) Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin HEALTHWAYS INC., et al., ) SUMMARY NOTICE ------------------------ Defendants. ----------- TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED HEALTHWAYS, INC. ("HEALTHWAYS") SECURITIES BETWEEN JULY 5, 2007 AND AUGUST 25, 2008, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, a hearing will be held on September 24, 2010, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Todd J. Campbell, Chief United States District Judge, at the Estes Kefauver Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the above-captioned Litigation for the sum of $23,600,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 21, 2010 (the "Stipulation"); (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and the reimbursement of Plaintiffs' expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation. If you purchased Healthways securities during the period beginning July 5, 2007 through August 25, 2008, inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Litigation and the settlement thereof. If you have not received a copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator: Healthways Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form postmarked no later than October 25, 2010, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in writing in the manner and form explained in the Notice, to the Claims Administrator at the above address, postmarked no later than September 10, 2010. Any objection to the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Clerk of the Court at the address below no later than September 10, 2010: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION Estes Kefauver Federal Building and United States Courthouse 801 Broadway, Room 800 Nashville, TN 37203 and copies received by the following counsel no later than September 10, 2010: Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Counsel for Plaintiffs - and - John L. Latham, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Counsel for Defendants PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: June 2, 2010 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Trial in Class Suit Set for Mid-July 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------ The trial date in a consolidated class action against Herley Industries, Inc., has been set for mid-July 2010, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2010. In June and July 2006, the company was served with several class- action complaints against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaints have been consolidated into one class action. The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during various periods before June 14, 2006. All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to dismiss on April 6, 2007. On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the company's and its former Chairman's motion to dismiss and granted, in part, the other defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the other defendants and denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim against them. On Oct. 9, 2009, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a class consisting of all purchasers of Herley stock between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006, who sustained a loss as a result of that acquisition. A trial date of mid-July of this year has been set for this action. Herley Industries, Inc. -- http://www.herley.com/-- is a leader in the design, development and manufacture of microwave technology solutions for the defense, aerospace and medical industries worldwide. Based in Lancaster, PA, Herley has seven manufacturing locations and approximately 1000 employees. IPO LITIGATION: Judge Scheindlin Requires $25,000 Appeal Bond ------------------------------------------------------------- As reported in the Class Action Reporter, a $586 million settlement in In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 21 MV 92 (S.D.N.Y.), was approved on October 5, 2009, providing closure to almost ten years of litigation involving 309 consolidated actions, 55 investment banks, thousands of individual defendants, and more than seven million potential class members. Out of the seven million potential class members, less than two ten-thousandths of one percent (0.0002%) -- approximately 140 class members -- submitted objections to the proposed settlement. Several objectors appealed that decision, contending that the District Court made a variety of errors in reaching its conclusion. The Plaintiffs argue that the Objectors' appeals are frivolous and request that each Objector group be compelled to post an appeal bond of $500,000 pursuant to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Unsurprisingly, the Objectors oppose. After considering the matter, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin orders the Objectors to post a $25,000 bond (for which all Objectors are jointly and severally liable). A copy of Judge Scheindlin's Opinion and Order dated June 18, 2010, is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100618a92 JO-ANN STORES: $5 Million Settlement Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, gave its final to the $5 million settlement in the purported wage and hour class-action suit, Patti Blair et al. v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. BC394795, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. In the complaint, as amended, six former company employees, individually and on behalf of the purported class members, allege that certain current and former California store team leaders employed by the company since July 21, 2004, were classified improperly as exempt employees (and thus not paid for overtime work), and that current and former hourly employees employed by the company's California stores since July 21, 2004, missed rest and meal breaks for which they were not properly compensated and at times worked off the clock without compensation. The amended complaint alleges other violations of California law arising from the alleged wage and hour violations. The amended complaint seeks substantial monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. On May 19, 2009 the court certified this matter to proceed as a class action. In September 2009, an agreement in principle, which has been executed by the company, was negotiated with counsel for the plaintiff. In November 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the negotiated settlement. The negotiated settlement provides for the payment by the company of up to $5.0 million, depending on the number of claims that are filed by the purported class members. In May 2010, the Court gave final approval to the negotiated settlement. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. -- http://www.joann.com/-- is a specialty retailer of fabrics and crafts, serving customers in their pursuit of apparel and craft sewing, crafting, home decorating and other creative endeavors. The company's retail stores (operating as Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft stores and Jo-Ann stores) and Website (www.Joann.com) feature a variety of merchandise used in sewing, crafting and home decorating projects, including fabrics, notions, crafts, frames, paper crafting material, artificial floral, home accents, finished seasonal and home decor merchandise. As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated 764 stores in 47 states (554 small-format stores and 210 large- format stores). K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Opposes Plaintiffs' Move to Amend Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- K-V Pharmaceutical Company has filed a memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend a consolidated complaint, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has dismissed a consolidated complaint against K-V Pharmaceutical Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On Feb. 3, 2009, plaintiff Harold Crocker filed a putative class- action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri captioned Crocker v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4-09-cv-198-CEJ. The Crocker case was followed shortly thereafter by two similar cases, also in the Eastern District of Missouri: (1) Bodnar v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4:09-cv-00222-HEA, filed on Feb. 9, 2009, and (2) Knoll v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4:09-cv-00297-JCH, filed on Feb. 24, 2009. The two later cases were consolidated into Crocker so that only a single action now exists, and the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 26, 2009. The Complaint purports to state claims against the company and certain current and former employees for alleged breach of fiduciary duties to participants in the company's 401(k) plan. Defendants, including the company and certain of its directors and officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Aug. 25, 2009, and briefing of those motions was completed on Oct. 19, 2009. The court granted the motion to dismiss of the company and all individual defendants on March 24, 2010. A motion to alter or amend the judgment and second amended consolidated complaint was filed on April 21, 2010. The company, on May 17, 2010, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the consolidated complaint. K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ -- is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology- distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products. The company markets its technology-distinguished products through Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary. K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Briefing on Plaintiffs' Appeal Completed ------------------------------------------------------------ The briefing on the plaintiffs' motion for relief from the order of dismissal and to amend their complaint against K-V Pharmaceutical Company has been completed, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010. On Dec. 2, 2008, plaintiff Joseph Mas filed a complaint against the company, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri styled Mas v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., Case No. 08-cv-1859. On Jan. 9, 2009, plaintiff Herman Unvericht filed a complaint against the company captioned Unvericht v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., Case No. 09-cv-0061, also in the Eastern District of Missouri. On Jan. 21, 2009, plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System filed a complaint against the company, again in the Eastern District of Missouri. The suit is Norfolk County Retirement System v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., Case No. 09-cv-00138. The operative complaints in these three cases purport to state claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of stock purchasers. On April 15, 2009, the Honorable Carol E. Jackson consolidated the Unvericht and Norfolk County cases into the Mas case already before her. The amended complaint for the consolidated action, styled Public Pension Fund Group v. KV Pharma. Co., et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-1859 (CEJ), was filed on May 22, 2009. Defendants, including the company and certain of its directors and officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 27, 2009, and briefing was completed on the motions to dismiss on Sept. 3, 2009. The court granted the motion to dismiss of the company and all individual defendants in February 2010. On March 18, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the order of dismissal and to amend their complaint, and also filed a notice of appeal. The company filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment and to amend the complaint on April 8, 2010. Briefing was completed on April 29, 2010. K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ -- is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology- distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products. The company markets its technology-distinguished products through Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary. K-V PHARMA: Remains a Defendant in 2 Suits Over Product Recalls --------------------------------------------------------------- K-V Pharmaceutical Company remains a defendant in two putative class actions relating to its voluntary product recalls, according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010. The company or ETHEX Corp. are named defendants in at least 34 pending product liability lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product recalls initiated by the company in late 2008 and early 2009. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege damages as a result of the ingestion of purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and 2008. The lawsuits are pending in federal and state courts in various jurisdictions. Of the 34 pending lawsuits, including four that have settled but have not yet been dismissed, 2 plaintiffs allege economic harm, 24 plaintiffs allege that a death occurred, 32 plaintiffs allege personal injury and the plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits allege non-fatal physical injuries. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability are based on various theories of recovery, including, but not limited to strict liability, negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding, fraud and other common law and/or statutory claims. Plaintiffs seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Two of the lawsuits are putative class actions, one of the lawsuits is on behalf of 24 claimants, and the remaining lawsuits are individual lawsuits. The company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against them, except where, in its judgment, settlement is appropriate. In addition to the 34 pending lawsuits, there are at least 208 pending pre-litigation claims (at least 30 of which involve a death) that may or may not eventually become lawsuits. The company has also resolved a significant number of related product liability lawsuits and pre-litigation claims. In addition to self insurance, the company possesses third party product liability insurance, which the Company believes is applicable to the pending lawsuits and claims. K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http:/www.kvpharmaceutical.com/ -- is a fully-integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology- distinguished branded prescription pharmaceutical products. The company markets its technology-distinguished products through Ther-Rx Corporation, its branded drug subsidiary. KENTUCKY TAX: Ky. App. Ct. Revives Delinquent Tax Fee Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kentucky Tax Bill Servicing, Inc., purchases delinquent county real estate tax bills and Kentucky Foreclosure Management, Inc., assists in the collection process. Two delinquent taxpayers filed suit, contesting interest, administrative and attorneys' fees payable to the tax certificate purchaser. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, apparently saying that it didn't have jurisdiction over the dispute. A three-judge panel in Spencer, et al. v. Kentucky Tax Bill Servicing, Inc., et al., No. 2009-CV-000792-MR, says the trial court has jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's ruling, and remanded the case to the trial court. A copy of the decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inkyco20100618280 The taxpayers are represented by: Charles T. Lester, Jr., Esq. ERIC C. DETERS & ASSOCIATES, P.S.C. 5247 Madison Pike Independence, KY 41051-7941 Telephone: 859-363-1900 E-mail: cteljr@yahoo.com and clester@ericdeters.com The tax certificate purchaser and servicer are represented by: Gary J. Sergent, Esq. Christopher J. Arlinghaus, Esq. O'HARA, RUBERG, TAYLOR, SLOAN & SERGENT 25 Town Center Boulevard, Suite 201 PO Box 17411 Covington, KY 41017-0411 Telephone: (859) 331-2000 E-mail: gsergent@ortlaw.com carlinghaus@ortlaw.com KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Settles Two Drywall Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------ Allen Johnson Jr., writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Chinese drywall maker Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. settled with two U.S. property owners, resulting in the dismissal of a trial intended to help determine issues in related lawsuits nationwide. Terms of the agreements weren't immediately filed following a settlement conference June 18 in the New Orleans chambers of U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon, who oversees Chinese drywall cases in federal courts. Knauf is among about 1,000 defendants that may face claims, Judge Fallon said last month. Judge Fallon ordered the dismissal of the two suits brought against Knauf by Paul Clement and Celeste Schexnaydre and by John Campbell, who own real estate near New Orleans that they claimed had been tainted by contaminated drywall that can cause health problems. Clement, Schexnaydre and Campbell were among more than 2,000 plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed in December against Knauf by New Orleans Saints Head Coach Sean Payton, and his wife, Beth Payton, who complained that Knauf drywall contaminated their home at Mandeville, Louisiana. The Clement and Campbell cases had been selected by the manufacturers to be heard together in a jury trial overseen by Judge Fallon and used as a benchmark for property damage in other cases. Judge Fallon may discuss the effect of the settlements on pending cases at a regular monthly status conference for the multidistrict litigation on June 24. The cases against Knauf were settled the same day a state jury in Florida awarded $2.5 million in damages to a couple whose home was contaminated with defective Chinese drywall. The case is In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, 2:09-md-02047 (E.D. La.). LG DISPLAY: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit on Price-Fixing Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, and its South Korean co-counsel, We The People Law Group, have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of LG Display Co., Ltd. (f/k/a LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd.) on the Korea Stock Exchange during the period from July 16, 2004 to November 13, 2008, inclusive, to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the Class Period, defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning LG's business affairs, how it was able to post historic profits, and the likelihood that it would be exposed to a massive criminal fine. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented, among other things, the following adverse facts: (a) From on or about September 21, 2001 to on or about June 1, 2006, LG and its co-conspirators engaged in a price-fixing scheme in order to suppress and eliminate competition in the LCD panel industry in unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce. The price-fixing scheme consisted of an ongoing agreement, understanding, and concert of action among LG and its co-conspirators. The purpose of the scheme was to fix the prices of LCD panel products; (b) In order to carry out the scheme, LG and its co-conspirators participated in meetings, including group meetings commonly referred to by the participants as "crystal meetings," conversations and communications in the U.S., Taiwan and Korea to agree to charge prices for LCD panel products at certain levels to be sold to certain resellers and consumers. The scheme involved issuing price quotations, as well as exchanging information on sales of LCD panel products; (c) The Company was reporting inflated revenues, profit margins and financial results that did not reflect its true business, but rather the results of the price-fixing scheme; (d) LG's Class Period financial strength and cost competitiveness were the result of its participation in the price-fixing conspiracy; and (e) following the announced raid by the South Korea Fair Trade Commission of LG's headquarters on or about December 8, 2006 and through November 12, 2008, defendants misled investors worldwide by touting its financial strength, cost savings, business structure, competitive advantages and strategic initiatives, while denying involvement in the price-fixing scheme and failing to disclose the strong likelihood that LG and a number of its senior executives would be forced to plead guilty to the antitrust conspiracy which had allowed it to inflate its profits and share price, and which ultimately resulted in the payment of a historic criminal fine of $400 million. If you purchased the securities of LG during the Class Period, you may apply to serve as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is responsible for overseeing the prosecution of the action and ensuring that the interests of the class are protected. Should you desire to be lead plaintiff, you may apply to be appointed through Zwerling Schachter. The lead plaintiff deadline is August 20, 2010. If you wish to discuss this securities class action or have any questions concerning your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact: Paul Kleidman, Esq. Shaye Fuchs, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP Telephone: (800) 721-3900 E-mail: pkleidman@zsz.com sfuchs@zsz.com You may also contact South Korean co-counsel: Young-Ki Rhee, Esq. WE THE PEOPLE LAW GROUP Telephone: (822) 2285-0062 E-mail: ykrhee@wethepeople.co.kr Zwerling Schachter -- http://www.zsz.com/-- concentrates its law practice in prosecuting class actions nationwide on behalf of investors. The firm currently plays a leading role in numerous major securities and complex commercial litigations pending in federal and state courts and has offices in New York, Garden City, N.Y., and Seattle. The firm has been recognized by courts throughout the country as highly experienced and skilled in complex litigation, particularly with respect to federal securities class action litigation. LOUISIANA: Judge OKs Plaintiffs' Bid for Legal Fees, Subpoena ------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro de los Rios at The Louisiana Record reports that Orleans Parish District Court Judge Paulette Irons ruled on three motions brought forth June 18 in a class action suit against the Louisiana Department of Social Services in Orleans Parish Civil District Court. Judge Irons granted the plaintiffs' motion to allocate attorneys fees and signed a consent judgment on a motion to set damages. She denied the defense's motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum -- which requires production of documents. In this case, the request the plaintiffs had requested names of potential class members. Gretna attorney Robert Creely, Esq., and New Orleans attorney Mickey Landry, Esq., filed the nine-year-old suit on behalf of employees of the LDSS who were allegedly exposed to toxic mold and mold spores in the building they worked at from 1996 to 2002. New Orleans resident Sherry Watters is the lead plaintiff of the class. The suit alleges that the offices at Plaza Tower -- owned and operated by BG Real Estate, Bahar Development, Baha Towers LP, NOOB I GP and NOOB I LP -- had problems with "water leaks, defective elevators, the presence of unknown toxic substances and safety hazards." The exposure to mold allegedly caused "sinus and allergy problems, debilitating headaches, skin irritation, watery eyes, and fatigue." The class action was consolidated with a similar class action, Kristen Rhodes et al. vs. BG Real Estate Services Inc. et al., filed by New Orleans attorney Richard Stanley, Esq., on behalf of a class of foster parents that were contractually obliged to enter the LDSS offices at the Plaza Tower. Five members of the class -- Ms. Watters, Gina Recasner, Wendy Lemieux, Frances Breyne and Gretchen Wiltz -- were awarded $119,617.68 paid by the State of Louisiana. From that amount, $93,126.44 relates to the damages and interest awarded to each class representative and the remaining $26,491.24 relates to the costs taxed against the State for the suit. Plaintiff counsel filed the motion to set attorney's fees and costs on June 3. The motion asked that the court "award an attorney fee of 36% of the $93,126.44 damage award pursuant to La. Code of Civil Procedure article 595." It also asked that the remaining $26,491.24 paid by the state for owed costs "be transferred to the escrow account used in previous settlements to reimburse class members for the costs they have previously paid to counsel." A seven-day bench trial in March 2008 awarded five of the class representatives $25,000 in general damages for pain and suffering and $10,000 for mental anguish and emotional distress. The ruling was affirmed on appeal and is the final judgment. A status conference was held on April 8 to determine the award for the remaining class members and to discuss possible mediation. Negotiations stalled because the plaintiffs could not name all the members of the class. The defense filed the motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum on April 27 after the plaintiff attorneys requested a list of all the employees and "contract foster-parents" which were present in the tower from 1996 until 2002. The defense stated that the "information requested is not relevant to any material issue in this case, nor is the use of a subpoena appropriate under the circumstances." The plaintiffs opposed the motion by saying their subpoena was "seeking materials evidencing the names and addresses of potential class members" and that information "is critical to ensuring that these individuals can pursue their claims." Orleans Parish Case 2001-17775 LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Stephens" Settlement Gets Preliminary Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego Superior Court, California gave its preliminary approval to the settlement agreement entered into by lululemon athletica inc. and the plaintiffs in the matter Mia Stephens et al. v. lululemon athletica inc., according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2010. On April 2, 2009, three former hourly company employees filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the company violated various California Labor Code sections by requiring employees to wear lululemon clothing during working hours without reimbursing such employees for the cost of the clothing and by paying certain bonus payments to its employees in the form of lululemon gift cards redeemable only for lululemon merchandise. The complaint also alleges that the company owes waiting time penalties as the result of failing to pay employees all wages due at the time of termination. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The company and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement on settlement terms and the agreement has received tentative approval from the court. Plaintiffs and the Company must now go through the process of obtaining final approval. lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in North America. Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the lululemon athletica brand name. The company offers a line of apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance, running and general fitness. It offers a line of performance apparel and accessories for both women and men. The company's fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital versatile discs, water bottles and headbands. LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Kohlenberg" Settlement Pact Gets Court Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Orange County Superior Court, California gave its preliminary approval to the settlement agreement between lululemon athletica inc. and the plaintiff in the matter Brett Kohlenberg et al v. lululemon athletica inc., according to the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2010. On March 26, 2009, a former hourly Company employee filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the company violated various California Labor Code sections by failing to pay its employees for certain rest and meal breaks and "off the clock" work, and for penalties related to waiting times and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The company and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement on settlement terms and the agreement has received tentative approval from the court. Plaintiffs and the company must now go through the process of obtaining final approval. lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in North America. Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the lululemon athletica brand name. The company offers a line of apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance, running and general fitness. It offers a line of performance apparel and accessories for both women and men. The company's fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital versatile discs, water bottles and headbands. MGA ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in Calif. Over 'Bratz' License Rights ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, the Singing Machine Co. claims MGA Entertainment charged it and others "millions of dollars in fees and royalties" to use the Bratz concept and identity, without the right to do so, "as MGA pirated the 'Bratz' concept and identity from its competitor, Mattel." A copy of the Complaint in The Singing Machine Company, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04536 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/22/Bratz.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Anton N. Handal, Esq. Gabriel G. Hedrick, Esq. Pamela Chalk, Esq. HANDAL & ASSOCIATES 1200 Third Ave., Suite 1321 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-544-6400 E-mail: anh@handal-law.com ghedrick@handal-law.com pchalk@handal-law.com NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Moose Victims Mull Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ CBC News reports that people calling for measures to reduce moose accidents on Newfoundland and Labrador's highways say they'll step up pressure if they don't get what they want at a meeting with provincial government officials Tuesday. The group argues the number of moose in the province needs to be culled, or controlled with fences, and more brush near roads needs to be cut in order to prevent highway accidents and deaths. "We're going to arrange a parade at the Confederation Building [in St. John's]. We're going to put the people in wheelchairs -- and there's many in this province totally disabled -- they are going to be in the front line. We're going to have many, many people from the public that have been affected by moose accidents behind them," said Eugene Nippard, a leader of the Save Our People Action Committee. Leaders of the Save Our People Action Committee were scheduled to meet with three provincial cabinet ministers Tuesday. Provincial officials say about 700 moose-vehicle accidents are reported annually across Newfoundland and Labrador. Moose aren't native to the island of Newfoundland but wildlife officials estimate that since they were introduced to the province more than a century ago, their population has grown to about 120,000 animals. Last fall, more than 20,000 people signed the action committee's petition calling on the provincial government to do more to control moose. In March, the province announced it would increase the number of moose hunting licenses it issues this coming fall. But Mr. Nippard said that's not enough. He said Tuesday morning that the group has been speaking with a lawyer about filing a class action suit against the provincial government for failing to protect people from moose. NOVA SCOTIA: Plaintiffs Seek Clean-up, Not Money ------------------------------------------------ Keith Doucette at The Canadian Press reports that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has been asked to determine whether a group of 400 people can launch a class-action lawsuit over health problems they claim they've suffered by living near the notorious Sydney tar ponds. Lawyer Ray Wagner, Esq., in his opening submission Monday before Justice John Murphy, said the group wasn't seeking personal injury claims against the federal and provincial governments. Instead, they want a cleanup of the soil around homes within a five- kilometre radius of the former Sydney Steel Co. and adjacent coke ovens operations, he said. The group also wants a health study to examine the impact of the toxic compounds produced by the former Crown-owned operations between 1968 and 2000. The tar ponds, created by the waste left behind after a century of steelmaking, are among the most contaminated sites in Canada. They are believed to contain 700,000 tonnes of toxic sludge. "What the community wants is: they want their day in court," Mr. Wagner told the court. "They trust the courts, but now in 2010 they do not trust the government." Mr. Wagner said the case was about "the contamination of an entire community." Mr. Wagner said he alleged both levels of government knew there were harmful substances in the runoff from the industrial operation and failed to inform the community. As well, the governments mischaracterized evidence presented in subsequent health studies, he said. Mr. Wagner argued a group action was the best way to seek justice because the costs would be too high for individual litigants. The lawsuit would represent the first environmental class action in Nova Scotia, he added. "These are not astronomical claims," Mr. Wagner said outside court. "We are not looking for personal injuries for people who have died of cancer, people who are suffering from cancer, people who will suffer from cancer . . . People will be free to bring those if they choose, on their own," said Mr. Wagner. Mr. Wagner said the cleanup request was the focus of the lawsuit. "Those properties that are contaminated and can be proven to be contaminated above a certain level . . . should be remediated so people can live in a healthy environment and not be concerned about what's in their home and in their backyards." But lawyers for both the province and Ottawa contend a class action isn't appropriate given that there would be too many "individual issues" that would have to be resolved to determine liability. Federal lawyer Michael Donovan, Esq., said on health issues alone, the case would have to delve into personal medical histories dating back 40 years, including the length and amounts of exposure to toxic substances suffered by people living in the area. "We're simply saying that's too big a piece to take on," Mr. Donovan said outside court. "There's so much variation that you really need to try individual cases." Agnes MacNeil, Esq., a lawyer for the Nova Scotia government, also took issue with the notion that the plaintiffs are after a "modest settlement." She said any cleanup of neighborhoods in Sydney alone would cost millions of dollars. "They're (the litigants) talking about digging up a foot of topsoil across a three-and-a- half mile radius," she said. "That's a lot of land to remove from Sydney and that would be very expensive." Both levels of government have already committed $400 million toward the cleanup of the tar ponds and coke ovens sites, which is expected to be completed by 2014. Nine days have been set aside for the hearing, which is being broadcast live over the Internet. The proposed action would bring the claimants under one umbrella for a single trial. Raymond Wagner, Esq., may be reached at: Raymond F. Wagner, Esq. WAGNERS LAW FIRM 3rd Floor, Pontac House Historic Properties 1869 Upper Water Street Halifax NS B3J 1S9 Telephone: (902) 425-7330 Toll Free: 1-800-465-8794 Facsimile: (902)422-1233 E-mail: seriousinjury@wagnerslawfirm.com ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL: Class Settlement Taken Under Advisement -------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that Judge Sidney Cates IV took under advisement a motion June 18 to determine the distribution of settlement funds in a class action suit filed by teachers against the Orleans Parish School Board in Orleans Parish Civil District Court. Angelyn Mills, Diane Nzinga and the United Teachers of New Orleans filed a class action suit against the OPSB in 2003 after they were denied pay raises mandated by Louisiana State Act 1341 which amended Louisiana Revised Statute 17:1202. As part of a settlement agreement on April 25, 2005, the OPSB authorized the payment of $6,844,433.67 that was saved as a result of Act 1341 to eligible members of the class. The payments were to be made in two installments, the first at with the first payroll of September 2005 and the second with the last payroll of December 2005. Act 1341 cut down on the amount of sick leave given to teachers and imposed additional requirements on teachers applying for extended sick leave in exchange for a pay raise for all Parish School Boards in Louisiana with the monies saved by the amendments. In November 2009, the OPSB filed a memorandum in opposition of the plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and distribution of funds, looking to be refunded $2.4 million of the unclaimed settlement funds. The motion stated that less than 60% of eligible class members claimed compensation and, as a result, the 3,057 claimants who submitted a proof of claim form would improperly receive a windfall and be paid forty percent or more above the amount each person is owed. After a hearing in December 2009, Judge Cates signed a consent judgment itemizing the partial distribution of settlement funds for different categories of the eligible class members. The OPSB voted against the consent judgment and re-urged their original motion. The plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Samuel III, Esq. RITTENBERG, SAMUEL & PHILLIPS, L.L.C. 715 Girod Street, Suite 100 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-5555 (Ext. 17) (504) 715-0484 (Mobile) Facsimile: (504) 524-0912 New Orleans attorneys John Etter, Esq., and Regina Bartholomew, Esq., are representing the OPSB. New Orleans attorney Donesia Turner, Esq., began as defendant counsel but withdrew in July 2005. PFIZER INC: May 2011 Trial Date Set for Zahn's Hormone Drug Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Amon at Bloomberg News reports that Pfizer Inc. faces a Texas trial over its hormone-replacement drugs after a judge overseeing lawsuits related to the medicines sent 200 cases back to their home courts. A judge in Galveston, Texas, set a May 2011 trial date for Karen Zahn's claims against Pfizer's Wyeth unit. Zahn says in her suit that the Prempro menopause drug helped cause her breast cancer. It's one of the first of more than 8,000 lawsuits over the medicine consolidated in federal court in Arkansas to be returned for trial, plaintiffs' lawyers said. U.S. District Judge William Wilson in Little Rock, Arkansas, is supervising pretrial proceedings in the cases against Wyeth and Pharmacia & Upjohn, another Pfizer unit. He returned the 200 cases to their courts in March and told lawyers to get another 400 ready to go back later this year. "Pfizer is now going to have to gear up and hire lawyers all over the country to try these cases," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond law school who teaches classes on mass- tort law. "That makes things more expensive and may provide some incentive to settle." Officials of New York-based Pfizer said that while Judge Wilson has sent back some cases, he refused plaintiffs' requests to send back all the suits at one time. "No decision has been made about how many additional cases will be remanded or when," Pfizer spokesman Chris Loder said in an e-mailed statement. It also isn't clear how many of the remanded cases will go to trial, he said. Mr. Loder refused to comment on whether Pfizer will seek to settle the remaining Prempro cases before Judge Wilson. The company faces at least 8,000 Prempro claims, Wyeth officials said in a 2009 regulatory filing. "Pfizer will continue to vigorously defend its hormone therapy medicines," he said in a statement. "We do not comment on the number of cases pending, nor do we comment on our legal strategy." The case is In Re Prempro Products, 03-cv-15070 (E.D. Ark.). On Thursday, the Class Action Reporter, citing The Associated Press, said the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a new trial in the case of a woman who got breast cancer after taking hormone replacement therapy and is seeking punitive damages against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. The justices rejected Wyeth's attempt to block the trial because it is to be limited to punitive damages. Wyeth also wanted the high court to throw out $2.75 million compensatory damages that the woman, Donna Scroggin, won after suing Wyeth and Upjohn Co., another drugmaker. Both companies now are owned by Pfizer Inc. A jury also awarded Ms. Scroggin $27 million in punitive damages after concluding that Wyeth inadequately warned her that its drugs Premarin and Prempro carried an increased risk of breast cancer. PINNACLE GROUP: Seeks 2nd Cir. OK to Challenge Class Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------- Jarrett Murphy, writing for City Limits, relates that two months after a federal judge granted class action status to a group of tenants suing the Pinnacle Group, the formal process of finding people who think they were wronged by the giant landlord is on hold. Pinnacle has asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to challenge that class certification, and a ruling on that motion could come any day. Until that ruling comes, those who might have been eligible to join the class, which would include all current and some former rent-regulated residents of Pinnacle buildings, aren't receiving official notification of their right to add their name to the suit. But that hasn't stopped the plaintiffs and their supporters like Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer from informally starting to recruit people to join the case. On Saturday, plaintiff Kim Powell and a representative from Mr. Stringer's office briefed a tenant group about it. Pinnacle lawyer Ken Fisher, Esq., predicted in an interview with City Limits that the plaintiffs will get few takers. He said that a poll of Pinnacle's residents found that 70% of tenants were satisfied with their landlord. "Ultimately, we don't think many people are going to come forward." Ms. Powell disagrees. She says her law firm tells her that "their phone is non-stop ringing. They are backlogged for months." The back and forth reflects Powell and Pinnacle's extremely acrimonious relationship. In one incident, Ms. Powell's mother Margaret Powell, who shares Ms. Powell's apartment, was arrested in 2006 for writing graffiti on an elevator. Ms. Powell says the graffiti was to protest poor service by Pinnacle. The prosecutor dropped the charges against Margaret Powell, and Pinnacle dropped a civil complaint when she agreed to refrain from creating "nuisances" and pay back rent. The lawsuit started in 2007, when a group of 10 Pinnacle tenants sued the landlord, owner of some 20,000 rent regulated apartments across the city, alleging that the company had raised rents improperly and filed eviction notices frivolously as part of a scheme to drive rent-regulated tenants out of their apartments so the landlord could raise rents or sell the units as condos or co-ops. The suit claimed that Pinnacle had violated not just state law but also the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, or RICO. The tenants sought an injunction compelling Pinnacle to stop the alleged practices and asked the court to force Pinnacle to pay damages to tenants who'd been wronged. It also asked for certification of Pinnacle tenants as a class. In April, District Judge Colleen McMahon granted that certification, but she has yet to issue any findings on the merits of the case yet. Even if the Second Circuit upholds Judge McMahon's decision, it will be many months before any ruling on the truth of the residents' claims. Five of the original plaintiffs have already settled and left the case. Supporters of the remaining plaintiffs -- residents of three Pinnacle-owned buildings in Harlem -- have cast the case as a potential landmark victory for renter's rights, and a potential model for actions against other landlords. But if the Second Circuit accepts Pinnacle's bid for an appeal hearing, the ultimate ruling might also set a precedent -- not for tenants, but for other citizens who try to sue under RICO. RICO applies when some person or group commits at least two different crimes in furtherance of the same criminal enterprise. It is a tool for prosecutors but also for private citizens. If a person can prove they've been harmed by a RICO enterprise they can collect three times as much as the illegal acts cost them. Since Pinnacle hasn't filed an appeal yet, it's unclear what other arguments it might make to the Second Circuit. But Pinnacle has already argued that under RICO, private citizens can't ask for injunctive relief -- a thorny point on which federal courts have split. In broader arguments against the tenants' case, Pinnacle also claims that the tenants' charges aren't specific enough to meet RICO standards: For instance, when the lawsuit alleges that Pinnacle committed mail fraud by sending notices of fraudulent rent increases through the mail, it doesn't say exactly who committed the alleged crime. Pinnacle also claims that the tenants lack standing and have already had their day in court (in housing court or in administrative proceedings). Beyond the legal arguments, Pinnacle -- the target of bad press for years -- is also showing concern for its public image. The Rent Stabilization Association, a landlord lobby group, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the District Court asserting that Pinnacle's rates of apartment turnover and deregulation of rent-regulated units compare favorably with citywide averages. Pinnacle's campaign to clear its name led it to send a freedom of information law (or FOIL) request in 2008 to Mr. Stringer asking the beep for letters and emails from constituents that would support Mr. Stringer's statement that year that "The name Pinnacle is just simply a code word for mass eviction." When the BP released some records but withheld others saying they were exempt from FOIL, Pinnacle sued. Mr. Stringer handed over the remaining documents. Fisher claims none of the complaints Mr. Stringer gathered were substantive, but Mr. Stringer's office disputes that. Some of the concerns about Pinnacle have attracted the attention of law enforcement officials -- former Attorney General Spitzer, his successor Andrew Cuomo and former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. In 2006, Messrs. Spitzer and Morgenthau launched investigations of Pinnacle. Late that year, Mr. Spitzer said his investigators had found some instances of Pinnacle overcharging tenants at one building. Pinnacle agreed to several conditions, including hiring a forensic accounting firm to evaluate its rents. Fisher claims that forensic study validated Pinnacle's rents in 95% of cases, but the plaintiffs say Pinnacle provided false information to the accountants. In a statement to City Limits, the Manhattan DA's office said its probe "didn't lead to a criminal prosecution." But, added spokeswoman Jennifer Kushner, "the Pinnacle Group agreed to the placement of a monitorship within the company for a period of time." Under the agreement with Mr. Spitzer, Pinnacle agreed to make regular reports on its rent law compliance for a year. Mr. Cuomo's office also investigated Pinnacle. In late 2008, the office announced, with little fanfare, that its investigators, posing as potential tenants, were told that Section 8 vouchers were not accepted at one Pinnacle building, in violation of the rules of a subsidy program in which that building had participated. Pinnacle agreed to better inform employees and tenants of renters' rights, create a waiting list for Section 8 renters for when any apartments are available, and, separately, set aside apartments for Section 8 renters. But Pinnacle admitted no wrongdoing -- and denied Cuomo's findings -- in their agreement with the AG. In fact, "Pinnacle has never acknowledged any deliberate wrongdoing and certainly not on the scale that's being alleged, and no court or regulator has ever found deliberate wrongdoing," Mr. Fisher said. "That's not to say that Pinnacle hasn't made mistakes." State regulators have documented some of those mistakes. "There have been many instances or cases where DHCR issued an order finding that a rent overcharge had occurred -- and the rent was subsequently reduced and a refund ordered -- for an apartment at a building owned by Pinnacle. We've also had a smaller amount of orders that reduce rent for decreases in services," says Jim Plastiras, a spokesman for the state Department of Housing and Community Renewal, which oversees rent regulated apartments. But Mr. Plastiras adds: "We have not issued any orders where there has been a finding of harassment, however, and there have also been instances where we've issued orders to say there had not been an overcharge or a decrease in services." Mr. Fisher says: "Pinnacle is proud if its record of providing safe and well-managed housing to thousands of New York families." When the company makes mistakes, "they work hard to correct them when they do and the notion of some vast conspiracy as claimed in this lawsuit is completely overblown." Pinnacle's counsel may be reached at: Kenneth K. Fisher, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 277 Park Avenue New York, New York 10172 Telephone: (212) 883-4962 Toll Free: (888) 864-3013 Facsimile: (212) 986-0604 E-mail: kfisher@cozen.com PRIMFORCE REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Suit; Owners Declare Bankruptcy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jean-Francois Bertrand at The Ottawa Citizen reports that the owners of a Gatineau investment firm that a group of investors is trying to sue for allegedly defrauding its members of millions of dollars have declared personal bankruptcy, court heard Monday. The group of more than 150 investors had asked Superior Court in Gatineau to authorize a class-action suit against a list of defendants, including the owners of Primforce Real Estate Investments Inc. -- Fran‡ois Roy, Marc Jemus and Robert Primeau -- but "we cannot legally sue them," said Pierre Sylvestre, Esq., lawyer for David Brown, a Ganonoque investor who is the main petitioner. The hearing, which began Monday, will determine if the class action application is granted and the case can proceed. Mr. Sylvestre, Esq., said outside of court that he asked to authorize a class action against two financial brokers, Gatineau notary Jean Lafreniere, B2B Trust and Whitney Canada, a real estate training company. "We claim that they were negligent, that they didn't keep their eyes open, that they're were not watchdogs." None of the claims have been proven in court. A criminal investigation by the RCMP has concluded after two years of investigation. The report is now in the hands of the Crown attorney's office in Gatineau, which will decide whether charges should be laid. The hearing was to resume Monday afternoon. PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Case Management Conferences Held Wednesday ------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record relates that three class actions over allegedly mismanaged mutual funds may be dead in the water even as case management conferences in all three are set. Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder was scheduled to oversee the conferences Wednesday in a mutual fund class action brought by lead plaintiffs Carl Kircher and Robert Brockway as well as two nearly identical cases led by Steve and Beth Dudley. The Fifth District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon recently found that the Kircher case ran afoul of the 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. The case was then dismissed. In the two Dudley cases, Judge Crowder heard arguments for and against the dismissal of those suits in May. While the defense argued that the Kircher decision should be applied to the nearly identical Dudley suits, the plaintiffs pled to be allowed to amend the suits to keep them alive. Judge Crowder took the moves under advisement. However, the defense entered a notice May 27 of a settlement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in a federal mutual funds class action. That settlement, overseen by U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz, preliminarily enjoins the Dudley cases from proceeding. The decision from Maryland came the same day Crowder took the dismissal motions and move to amend under advisement. Final approval of the Maryland settlement remains pending. A number of cases over the management of mutual funds are pending across the country. The Dudley cases ping-ponged back and forth between federal court and Madison County. They eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of removal before they returned to Edwardsville. The Kircher case and the Dudley cases were filed by Stephen Tillery and Christine Moody. The defendants in the Kircher case are Putnam Funds, Putnam Investment Management LLC, Evergreen Investment Management LLC and Evergreen Internationl Trust. Rebecca Jackson, Esq., represents the Putnam defendants in the Kircher case. She may be reached at: Rebecca R. Jackson, Esq. BRYAN CAVE St. Louis, MO Telephone: (314) 259-2217 Facsimile: (314) 552-8217 E-mail: rrjackson@bryancave.com Ann Barron, Esq., represents the Evergreen defendants in the Kircher case. In the Dudley cases, the defendants include Putnam Equity Funds and Putnam Investment Management. Ms. Jackson and others represent the defendants in the Dudley cases. The Kircher case is Madison case number 03-L-1255. The two Putnam cases are case numbers 03-L-1539 and 03-L-1540. ROBERT GUENTHER: Pro Se Plaintiff Won't Be Representing Any Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Karen M. Hunphreys says that a pro se plaintiff in trust and estate-related litigation won't be representing any potential elder abuse plaintiff class because "a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is not capable of 'fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the class.'" That statement appears in a Memorandum and Order entered in Kastner v. Guenther, Case No. 10-cv-01013 (D. Kan.), and a copy of the order dated June 18, 2010, is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100618a78 SPECTRANETICS CORP: To Pay $8.5-Mil. to Settle Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Spectranetics Corporation has agreed in principle to settle both the securities class action litigation pending against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors and the stockholder derivative case naming the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. The class action was brought on behalf of persons and entities who bought or acquired shares of Spectranetics' common stock between March 16, 2007 and September 4, 2008. Under the proposed class action settlement, the claims against Spectranetics and its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a cash payment of $8.5 million to be funded by Spectranetics' Insurers. The proposed settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final stipulation of settlement, and approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado following notice to members of the class. Terms for distribution of the settlement fund to class members, less fees awarded by the court to class counsel, and other terms of the settlement will be disclosed in a notice to be sent to class members after preliminary court approval. Under the terms of the proposed derivative settlement, plaintiffs (on their own behalf and derivatively on behalf of Spectranetics) will dismiss the stockholder derivative case with prejudice and release their claims in exchange for formalizing certain corporate governance procedures and payment of attorneys fees of $350,000. As with the class action settlement, the proposed settlement will be funded by Spectranetics' Insurers and remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final stipulation of settlement and approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Company and the individual defendants have steadfastly maintained that the claims raised in the class action litigation and stockholder derivative case were without merit, and have vigorously contested those claims. As part of the settlements, the Company and the individual defendants continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing under the securities laws. "I'm pleased that, upon approval by the Court, we can put the securities class action lawsuit and stockholder derivative case behind us and avoid the distraction and cost associated with protracted litigation," said Emile J. Geisenheimer, Spectranetics' Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer. The Company also recently became aware that three Spectranetics stockholders filed an individual lawsuit on May 28, 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado asserting various federal and state claims arising out of the same facts alleged in the securities class action. Two of the three stockholders who brought this case had previously moved unsuccessfully to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the securities class action where they claimed a loss of $1.27 million. Spectranetics intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. The Spectranetics Corporation -- http://www.spectranetics.com/-- develops, manufactures, markets and distributes single-use medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures within the cardiovascular system. The Company's products are sold in 40 countries throughout the world and are used to treat arterial blockages in the heart and legs as well as the removal of problematic pacemaker and defibrillator leads. The Company's Vascular Intervention (VI) products include a range of peripheral and cardiac laser catheters for ablation of occluded arteries above and below the knee and within coronary arteries. The Company also markets aspiration and thrombectomy catheters for the removal of thrombus and support catheters to facilitate crossing of coronary and peripheral arterial blockages. The Lead Management (LM) product line includes excimer laser sheaths and cardiac lead management accessories for the removal of problematic pacemaker and defibrillator cardiac leads. SUNTECH ENTERPRISES: Recalls 8,400 Baby Walkers ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Suntech Enterprises Inc., of Commerce, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 8,400 Baby Walkers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The recalled walkers can fit through a standard doorway and fail to have sufficient stair-fall protection to prevent falls down stairs. Babies using these walkers can be seriously injured or killed if they fall down stairs. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves baby walkers that have a plastic frame supported by four wheels and eight brake pads. The walkers were sold in blue, pink, and green with a white activity tray and patterned, vinyl seat. Item number WK110 or WK112 is printed on the side of the packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10269.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through consumers should immediately stop using the walkers and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund. For additional information, contact Suntech Enterprises toll-free at (888) 268-8139 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday. This recall is being conducted voluntarily, however, in May 2010, CPSC issued a new mandatory rule on baby walkers that is effective on December 21, 2010. The walkers will be required to either: 1) be too wide to fit through a standard doorway, or 2) have features, such as a gripping mechanism, to stop the walker at the edge of a step. TELIK INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Shareholder Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals affirmed a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2008 between a class of shareholder-plaintiffs and Telik, Inc. Coverage of that $5 million settlement appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 29, 2008. A copy of the appellate court's decision in May v. Telik, Inc., No. 08-5341 (2d Cir. June 21, 2010), is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100621094 The Shareholder Class is represented by: Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com seidman@bernlieb.com Telik, Inc., and various insiders are represented by: Jamie A. Levitt, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104-0050 Telephone: (212) 468-8000 E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers ------------------------------------------------------------- Toys "R" Us, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated class action case brought by internet retailers. On July 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the class plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consumer class action commenced in January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by two Internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005. Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby product manufacturers to impose, maintain or enforce minimum price agreements in violation of antitrust laws. In addition, in December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a similar action and another class action was commenced making similar allegations involving most of the same Defendants. No further updates were reported in the company's June 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2010. Toys "R" Us' Inc. -- http://www.toysrus.com/-- is one of the world's largest toy retailers. Toys "R" Us sells its wares in about 1,500 stores in the US and abroad and through Web sites. In addition to about 585 US namesake stores selling toys, games, and other items for kids, Toys "R" Us sells infant and toddler apparel, furniture, and feeding supplies at some 260 Babies "R" Us stores in more than 40 states. It's owned by KKR, Bain Capital, and real estate firm Vornado Realty Trust, which together took the toy seller private in a $6.6 billion deal. Toys "R" Us acquired troubled toy icon FAO Schwarz in 2009. U.S. BANK: Ore. Employee Class Doesn't Recover Legal Fees --------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Court of Appeals turned down an employee plaintiff class' request for payment of legal fees in Belknap and Brulc v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 030100042, A138636 (June 16, 2010). The Plaintiffs requested payment of $151,000. Seeing noticing problems, the trial court awarded $16,000. The appellate court says nothing is payable in its decision available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inorco20100616435 The employees are represented by: A. E. Bud Bailey, Esq. J. Dana Pinney, Esq. Jacqueline L. Koch, Esq. BAILEY, PINNEY & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1498 S.E. Tech Center Place, Suite 290 Vancouver, WA 98683 Telephone: (360) 567-2551 E-mail: bbailey@wagelawyer.com jdpinney@wagelawyer.com U.S. Bank is represented by: Christopher F. McCracken, Esq. Timothy R. Volpert, Esq. Carol J. Bernick, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97201-5630 Telephone: (503) 241-2300 E-mail: chrismccracken@dwt.com timvolpert@dwt.com carolbernick@dwt.com VALEANT PHARMA: Kendall Launches Class Suit on Biovail Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Law Group is investigating Valeant Pharmaceuticals International for shareholders in connection with the proposed merger with Biovail. The firm's investigation seeks to determine whether Valeant and its Board breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the agreement without properly shopping for a deal that would provide better value for shareholders. If you are a Valeant shareholder and would like additional information about your rights, contact the Kendall Law Group at 877-744-3728 or by email at jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com On June 21, 2010, the companies announced that they had entered into an agreement for Valeant to be acquired by Biovail in a transaction valued at approximately $3.2 billion. Under the terms of the agreement, Valeant shareholders will receive a cash dividend of $16.77 per share and 1.7809 shares of Biovail common stock for each share of Valeant stock held. Based on Biovail's closing price of $14.60 the day before the deal was announced, this offer values Valeant stock at $42.77 per share. Because Valeant shares closed at $45.87 on Friday, the firm believes this offer to be inadequate for the shareholders. Kendall Law Group may be reached at: KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP Jamie McKey, Esq. Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Toll Free: (877) 744-3728 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com Dallas-based Kendall Law Group -- http://www.kendalllawgroup.com/ -- was founded by a former federal judge, includes a former United States Attorney, prosecutors and securities lawyers who are experienced in complex securities litigation. The firm has been counsel in numerous merger and acquisition cases nationwide, including some of the largest transactions in the United States. Since leaving the bench to return to trial work, Mr. Kendall has had tremendous success at the prosecution of patent, consumer and securities class action litigation either as lead, co-lead or liaison counsel. VIVENDI SA: Investors Ask Paris Court to Compel Repayment --------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Amon at Bloomberg News reports that Vivendi SA investors asked a Paris court to order former Chief Executive Officer Jean- Marie Messier and six other former executives, as well as the company, to repay them money lost during a $77 billion acquisition spree. Vivendi isn't a defendant and has participated in the trial claiming it was also a victim of the acquisition campaign that preceded Mr. Messier's 2002 ouster. The company's lawyer said June 18 that its goal was to "aid in a manifestation of the truth" of the Messier era and said it should pay no damages. Vivendi joined the case "so that we might at last turn the page, so that we can focus on what Vivendi does now," company lawyer Herve Pisani said. Shareholder lawyer Frederik-Karel Canoy asked the court to "set a precedent," estimating the loss at 160 euros ($198) per share and seeking 10 euros a share in prejudice. He told the court Vivendi should join in paying. An award would tell shareholders "if we can stay in France or do we have to go to the U.S." French investors joined a class action in New York, where the jury in January cleared Mr. Messier and former Chief Financial Officer Guillaume Hannezo of wrongdoing while finding the company liable for misleading investors. Vivendi has appealed and set aside 550 million euros for any potential award. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Says Multiple Domains for Spam is Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- California's Business and Professions Code section 17529.5, subdivision (a)(2), provides that it is unlawful to advertise in a commercial electronic mail (e-mail) advertisement -- commonly known as "spam" -- if the advertisement "contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information." In Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., No S16995 (Cal.), California's highest court was asked whether, under this section, it is unlawful to send commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters. On the undisputed facts of this case, the answer is "no." A copy of the Court's decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100621062 The spammed plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 330-7149 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com Vonage is represented by: Judith B. Gitterman, Esq. PERKINS COIE 1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Telephone: (310) 788.9900 E-mail: JGitterman@perkinscoie.com - and - Elizabeth L. McDougall, Esq. Rebecca S. Engrav, Esq. PERKINS COIE 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359.8000 E-mail: EMcDougall@perkinscoie.com REngrav@perkinscoie.com The Email Sender and Provider Coalition and ValueClick, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Vonage, are represented by: Daniel M. Kolkey, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 393.8200 E-mail: dkolkey@gibsondunn.com - and - S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq. Michael B. Smith, Esq. Benjamin M. Glickman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211 Telephone: (650) 849.5300 E-mail: aberinger@gibsondunn.com msmith@gibsondunn.com bglickman@gibsondunn.com YTB INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit Re-Filed in Madison County -------------------------------------------------------- The Riverfront Times' Chad Garrison reports that a class-action lawsuit first filed in federal court in Illinois has been re-filed in Madison County accusing the Wood River-based YTB International Inc. of being a "pyramid scheme." The lawsuit follows years of allegations that YTB operates as a Ponzi scheme. In 2009, the California attorney general reached a settlement in which YTB agreed to pay $1 million in restitution to victims of the company's so-called pyramid scheme in that state. Last year, the Illinois attorney general also sued YTB on allegations that the company's leaders unfairly profited on the recruitment fees of junior members. The class action filed in Madison County this month launches similar allegations as those made by the attorneys general. St. Louis attorney Jay Kanzler, Esq., one of several lawyers bringing the class-action suit, tells Daily RFT that his team is representing more than a thousand alleged victims in the states of Illinois, Missouri, Utah and Georgia. Mr. Kanzler may be reached at: Jay L. Kanzler, Jr., Esq. WITZEL, KANZLER, DIMMITT, KENNEY & KANZLER LLC 2001 S. Big Bend Boulevard Richmond Heights, MO 63117 Telephone: (314) 645-5367 Facsimile: (314) 645-5387 A federal judge dismissed the suit earlier on the argument that Illinois consumer-fraud laws don't apply to people living outside the state. While Mr. Kanzler and his team are appealing that ruling, the decision was made to file the case in Madison County Court -- the local jurisdiction for YTB. YTB International, Inc. -- http://www.ytb.com/-- provides E-commerce business solutions for individual consumers and home- based independent representatives in the United States, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Canada, Bermuda, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Company operates through three subsidiaries: ZamZuu, Inc. (formerly YTB Marketing, Inc.), YTB Travel Network, Inc., and YTB Franchise Services, Inc. * Adam Savett to Lead CCB's Securities Class Actions Service ------------------------------------------------------------ Claims Compensation Bureau, LLC, a majority owned subsidiary of Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., unveiled the appointment of Adam Savett as director, Securities Class Actions, a newly created position to manage all aspects of CCB's securities class actions service. "CCB's status as a pioneer in the claims filing industry coupled with Adam's vast securities litigation experience represents an exciting combination of expertise and skill sets," said Brad Heffler, president and founder, Claims Compensation Bureau. "We are thrilled to welcome Adam to CCB." Prior to joining CCB, Mr. Savett served as director of Securities Class Action Services at RiskMetrics Group, which was recently acquired by MSCI Inc. He is an industry leader in the field of Securities Class Actions and has authored a number of original research pieces on such topics as international institutional investor involvement in U.S. securities class actions, the fiduciary duty of institutions to file claim forms, and subprime litigation. He is frequently quoted in the media on securities litigation-related topics and speaks at institutional investor and corporate action conferences on similar topics. At RiskMetrics, Mr. Savett consulted for and serviced major mutual funds, custodial companies, money managers, hedge funds, and other securities companies that had interest in the determination, calculation, administration and recovery of securities class actions. Before joining RiskMetrics, Mr. Savett was a securities litigator representing and advising institutional investors, including public and private pension funds, as well as Taft- Hartley plans on all aspects of securities litigation. Recently, Mr. Savett was named one of the "100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation" by Lawdragon Magazine. CCB may be reached at: Adam Savett CLAIMS COMPENSATION BUREAU, LLC 1100 E. Hector St. #250 Conshohocken, PA 19428-2377 Telephone: (610) 834-9010 Facsimile: (610) 834-9014 E-mail: info@claimscompensation.com About Claims Compensation Bureau Based in Conshohocken, Pa., Claims Compensation Bureau -- http://www.claimscompensation.com/-- was founded in 1996 and is a leading provider of class action claims, settlement recovery services and related payment processing to corporate clients. CCB has over 300 clients, including Fortune 500 companies, institutional investors and large privately held companies. CCB's processes are designed to allow clients to maximize settlement recoveries, in many cases participating in settlements they would otherwise not know existed. CCB charges fees for its services and works with clients to identify, prepare and submit claims to class action administrators charged with dispersing class action settlement funds. About Portfolio Recovery Associates Portfolio Recovery Associates' business revolves around the detection, collection, and processing of both unpaid and normal- course receivables originally owed to credit grantors, governments, retailers and others. The company's primary business is the purchase, collection and management of portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables. These are the unpaid obligations of individuals to credit originators, which include banks, credit unions, consumer and auto finance companies, and retail merchants. Portfolio Recovery Associates also provides fee-based services, including collateral-location services for credit originators via its IGS subsidiary, revenue administration, audit and debt discovery/recovery services for government entities through both its RDS and MuniServices businesses and class action claims recovery services and related payment processing through its CCB subsidiary. * Garden City Group Unveils New Corporate Web Site -------------------------------------------------- The Garden City Group, Inc. unveiled a newly redesigned corporate Web site that reflects the firm's recent rebranding initiative. GCG is the recognized leader in legal administration services for class action settlements, bankruptcy cases and legal noticing programs, with more than 400 employees in offices coast-to-coast. The overall rebranding effort, new logo and revamped Web site -- http://www.gardencitygroup.com/-- created in tandem with SoHo advertising agency Barker/DZP, present a more contemporary, dynamic image that better reflects the firm's forward-thinking outlook, breadth of services, expertise and technology leadership. "For more than 25 years, GCG has earned the confidence and respect of the legal community when it comes to handling administration services for class action settlements, bankruptcy cases and legal notice programs," said David A. Isaac, chief executive officer of GCG. "Our recent rebranding, as reflected in this new website, more effectively communicates our capabilities, dedication to quality and technology leadership." GCG has handled some of the largest and most complex cases in class action history, including the $6.1 billion WorldCom Inc. securities litigation, Visa MasterMoney antitrust litigation and Engle Trust Fund distribution. On the bankruptcy side, GCG has handled several high-profile administrations, including the General Motors bankruptcy, which is viewed by many as the largest and most complex bankruptcy of all time. "At GCG we are constantly looking towards the future and our new rebranding initiative will help us do that," said Neil L. Zola, president and chief operating officer of GCG. "Our new website provides a fresh, well-designed look which creates an informative experience for our online visitors." Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Crawford & Company -- http://www.crawfordandcompany.com/-- is the world's largest independent provider of claims management solutions to the risk management and insurance industry as well as self-insured entities, with a global network of more than 700 locations in 63 countries. The Crawford System of Claims Solutions(SM) offers comprehensive, integrated claims services, business process outsourcing and consulting services for major product lines including property and casualty claims management, workers compensation claims and medical management, and legal settlement administration. The Company's shares are traded on the NYSE under the symbols CRDA and CRDB. Barker/DZP -- http://www.barkerdzp.com/-- is a fast-growing full- service independent agency built from a core team of large-agency veterans who understand the new world of consumer engagement. Barker/DZP delivers high-impact digital innovation, branding, advertising and social media for clients such as P&G, Estee Lauder, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Phoenix Capital, BEST Sports and Entertainment, Viacom, dunhill, IDB Bank and others. The Garden City Group, Inc. -- http://www.gardencitygroup.com/-- a subsidiary of Crawford & Company, administers class action settlements, designs legal notice programs, manages Chapter 11 administrations, and provides expert consultation services. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belville Case v. 83 Firms Filed June 7 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit styled Naomi J. Belville, executrix of the Estate of Bernard C. Belville, decease vs. A.W. Chesterton Company, Allied Chemical Corporation, American Cyanamid Company et al., was filed against 83 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on June 7, 2010, The West Virginia Record reports. Mrs. Belville, of Lawrence County, Ohio, claims the defendants are responsible for the death of her husband. Mr. Belville worked for about 26 years at various sites through Insulator Local 80 in West Virginia and was exposed to various insulating and building materials containing asbestos, according to the suit. He was diagnosed with lung cancer and died on June 20, 2008. Mrs. Belville seeks compensatory and punitive damages. William K. Schwartz, Esq., represents Mrs. Belville. Case No. 10-C-1015 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scudder Case v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit styled Roy E. Scudder vs. CSX Transportation, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company; and Chessie System was filed on June 8, 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Roy E. Scudder was employed by CSX Transportation, Inc. from 1948 until 1984 as a laborer and operator. He claims he was exposed to toxic substances, including asbestos, chemicals and diesel exhaust, which caused him to develop lung cancer. Mr. Scudder seeks damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. James A. McKowen, Esq., and John E. Guerry III, Esq., represent Mr. Scudder. Case No. 10-C-1023 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Osborne Case v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit entitled Althea F. Osborne, individually and as executrix of the Estate of Jesse Elwood Osborne, deceased vs. CSX Transportation, Inc., individually and as successor-in- interest to Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company; and Chessie System was filed on June 8, 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Jesse Elwood Osborne was employed by CSX Transportation, Inc. from 1947 until 1987 as a laborer, equipment operator and engineer. Althea Osborne claims he was exposed to toxic substances, including asbestos, chemicals and diesel exhaust, which caused him to develop lung cancer. Mrs. Osborne seeks damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. James A. McKowen, Esq., and John E. Guerry III, Esq., represent Mrs. Osborne. Case No. 10-C-1024 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis Claim v. CSX Filed June 8 in Kanawha Co. --------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit entitled Natalie Davis, individually and as executrix of the Estate of Eugene Floyd, deceased vs. CSX Transportation, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company; and Chessie System was filed on June 8 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Eugene Floyd was employed by CSX Transportation, Inc. from 1967 until 1993 as a machine operator and foreman. Natalie Davis claims her husband was exposed to toxic substances, including asbestos, chemicals and diesel exhaust, which caused him to develop lung cancer. She seeks damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. James A. McKowen, Esq., and John E. Guerry III, Esq., represent Mrs. Davis. Case No. 10-C-1025 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chancey Claim v. 48 Firms Filed May 14 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Guy and Louise Dale Chancey, on May 14, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 48 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. The suit says that Mr. Chancey was diagnosed with lung cancer on Aug. 19, 2009. He was employed by Union Carbide Corporation from 1959 until 1991 as an insulator. The Chanceys claim Mr. Chancey smoked on and off from 1952 until 2009, but has since quit. They seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved in the case. Victoria Antion, Esq., and Lawrence J. Tweel, Esq., represent the Chanceys. Case No. 10-C-879 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Navy Partly Liable in Collins Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- A California Appeals Court allocated a share of fault to the U.S. Navy for veteran Ulysses Collins' exposure to asbestos, Asbestos.com reports. Mr. Collins died of malignant mesothelioma in 2005. He had a 31- year history working in naval shipyards where he experienced exposure to asbestos on a regular basis. In an earlier ruling, the jury awarded Mr. Collins more than US$10 million in damages and allocated 20 percent of the shared fault to Plant Insulation Company. A total of 17 entities shared the fault with Plant. However, Plant Insulation was the sole entity to appeal the exclusion of the U.S. Navy from the list of responsible parties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Claim v. 47 Firms Filed May 17 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Judson and Sharon Marie Judson, on May 17, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 47 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Johnson had worked for FMC Corporation from 1972 until 1980. He also worked for E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in 1980, according to the complaint. On May 14, 2009, Mr. Johnson was diagnosed with lung cancer. Mr. Johnson claims he smoked one to two packs of cigarettes per day from 1965 until 1969, but then quit. The Johnsons seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved in the case. Victoria Antion, Esq., and James A. McKowen, Esq., represent the Johnsons. Case No. 10-C-890 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Contractors Fined $100T for NESHAP Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona Attorney General's Office, on June 18, 2010, announced that Hunt Building Comp, Ltd., Camp Pendleton and Quantico Housing, LLC and Flores-Sierra Contractors, Inc. have agreed to pay a US$100,000 penalty under a consent judgment for asbestos air quality violations, according to an ADEQ press release dated June 18, 2010. These violations occurred during housing renovations at Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma in 2006. In addition, the defendants agreed to reimburse any uninsured costs of medical screening for asbestos exposure of residents living in 24 base housing units within the Capehart military family housing neighborhood in January and February 2006. The defendants will be working with the base to send written notification to the residents known to have lived in these units during that time period. In January and February 2006, Hunt Building Comp., Ltd. and Flores/Sierra Contractors Inc. disturbed regulated asbestos- containing materials during the renovation activities that involved disturbance of more than 6,400 square feet of wood and stucco. Military family residents reported the activities to ADEQ for investigation because they were concerned with potential exposure from dust generated by the renovations. The violations are of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP). ADEQ Director Benjamin H. Grumbles said, "Proper inspection and safe handling of asbestos from the start keeps people out of harm's way and companies in compliance with the law. The good news is that after ADEQ's efforts the companies came into compliance and completed the project." Attorney General Terry Goddard said, "Strict compliance with asbestos identification, notification and handling requirements is necessary to ensure safe handling and disposal of these carcinogenic materials. Arizona's asbestos handling rules protect our communities, workforce and public health. Violations will not be tolerated." The consent judgment is subject to court approval. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durabla Accused of Filing Phony Bankruptcy Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos lawyers from Philadelphia are accusing Durabla Manufacturing Corp., a former gasket manufacturer, of filing a phony bankruptcy petition to shield owner David Moser from liability, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. Natalie Ramsey, Esq., of Wilmington wrote for the Shein Law Firm of Philadelphia in May 2010, "DMC has nothing to reorganize, and did not file its Chapter 11 case for the good faith purpose of reorganizing its business." For the moment, Durabla's bankruptcy prevents Shein clients from pursuing claims against Mr. Moser as the company's "alter ego." Mr. Moser has started an adversary proceeding that would enjoin alter ego claims. Ms. Ramsey wrote that before DMC filed its petition, in a case filed by Shein plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Mr. Moser and related companies lost motions to dismiss the same alter ego claims they now seek to enjoin. For Durabla, Thomas Francella, Esq., of Wilmington, Del., answered on June 9, 2010 that Mr. Moser does not intend to escape alter ego claims. Mr. Moser and his other companies have offered to contribute to a trust in exchange for the protections of an injunction against alter ego asbestos claims, Mr. Francella wrote. Durabla faced more than 100,000 asbestos suits when it petitioned for bankruptcy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taylor Case v. 77 Firms Filed May 20 in Kanawha ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ross J. and Claris Vivian Taylor, on May 20, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 77 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Taylor was diagnosed with mesothelioma last April 23, 2010. The plaintiffs claim Mr. Taylor was exposed to and did inhale dust and asbestos fibers, which caused the mesothelioma. They seek compensatory and punitive damages. Brian A. Prim, Esq., represents the Taylors. Case No. 10-C-915 is assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Local Awarded 6-Figure Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Hutcheon, a 75-year-old resident of Queensland, Australia, received an undisclosed six-figure sum after developing mesothelioma from working at the Rockhampton Power Station, a defunct power plant in Queensland, the Australian Associated Press reports. Mr. Hutcheon took legal action and was awarded a six-figure out- of-court compensation payout. His lawyer, Roger Singh, says the money would not return his quality of life. Mr. Hutcheon was diagnosed with asbestos disease in May 2009 after suffering breathing problems and now receives around-the-clock palliative care. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chorleywood Resident's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at the Hatfield Coroners Court on June 22, 2010 heard that the death of Michael Wareham, of Chorleywood, Hertfordshire, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Watford Observer reports. Mr. Wareham died at the age of 73 on May 19, 2010, at his home in Heronsgate Road. The court heard how Mr. Wareham, a former carpenter and joiner, had been exposed to asbestos for a 12-year period from 1951, when he would regularly cut and fit sheets of the fireproof material. Coroner Edward Thomas explained how this prolonged exposure, during a time when the dangers of the material were not fully understood, had caused Mr. Wareham's death. Mr. Thomas said, "Witness statements show extensive exposure to asbestos dust for some years, between 1951 and 1963. Although that is more than 46 years ago it is not uncommon that somebody who is exposed that long ago displays symptoms some 50 years later." Mr. Thomas, referring to witness statements, said Mr. Wareham, who was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in June 2009, had been working in unventilated areas without modern safety equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Preston Pensioner Gets GBP162,000 -------------------------------------------------- A 72-year-old unnamed pensioner from Preston, Lancashire, England, received GBP162,000 in asbestos compensation after he developed mesothelioma about 50 years ago, the Lancashire Evening Post reports. The pensioner worked as an engineer with Leyland Motors from 1953 until 1958. Exposed to asbestos during the work he did as a teenager, it was more than 50 years before the asbestos severely affected his health and led to him developing mesothelioma. Susan Dawson, an industrial disease specialist with Fentons Solicitors LLP, said, "My client was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a painful cancer which affects the lungs and is nearly always caused by exposure to asbestos fibres. "Following his work at Leyland Motors and his National Service, my client never returned to engineering, instead pursuing a successful career in the public sector. "But in 2006 he developed a cough, pains in his chest, and started to feel very tired. After various treatments and tests he was still no better, and on June 10 last year, he was diagnosed." The pensioner made an appeal in the Evening Post for any former colleagues who might remember the working conditions from the 1950s to come forward. He said, "I started my apprenticeship at the North Works Site in Leyland, where I made and repaired vehicle parts for buses and lorries. My work included producing parts, stampings and drop forgings, and I would also repair faulty vehicle parts. "In late 1954, I was transferred to the Farington site, where I worked in the maintenance department and the foundry. There was pipe work all over the foundry, running up and around the outer walls, along gantry supports, and to the furnaces and the machinery. I remember being told that all of this pipe work was lagged with asbestos." Miss Dawson says she received numerous calls following the appeal, including some from people who thought they might be able to help the pensioner's case. She said, "Thankfully, we were able to get hold of sufficient evidence that my client's claim was not disputed, and the insurers settled the case for just over GBP162,000." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Inquest Rules on Alvaston Joiner's Death --------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at the Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard that the death of George Marshall, a former joiner of Alvaston, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports. Mr. Marshall, who died at the age of 84, served in France, Egypt, Greece and Gibraltar during the Second World War. He developed bronchial pneumonia as a result of being exposed to asbestos during his working life. Mr. Marshall first came into contact with asbestos when he worked as an apprentice in Loughborough in the early 1940s. During this time, he said he also fitted windows which were fixed into place with putty, molded by hand and contained asbestos. After the war, he returned to work in Loughborough but left in 1949. The court heard Mr. Marshall developed a cough in 2003 which developed into a chest infection. After collapsing, he was taken to the former Derby City Hospital where it was discovered he had scarring on his lungs. A scan further showed he had fibrosis, which was discovered to be asbestos. Following Mr. Marshall's death on April 21, 2010, a postmortem examination by Dr. Gurprit Atwal gave his medical cause of death as bronchial pneumonia as a result of asbestosis. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estep Claim v. 56 Firms Filed May 14 in Kanawha ---------------------------------------------------------------- On May 14, 2010, John Wheeler Estep Jr., of Catlettsburg, Ky., filed an asbestos lawsuit against 56 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. On Oct. 30, 2009, Mr. Estep was diagnosed with lung cancer. He worked for General Motors Company from 1966 until 1968 and also worked for Ashland Oil from 1968 until 1993 as a laborer. Mr. Estep claims he smoked one pack of cigarettes per day from 1957 until 2009, but has since quit. He seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved in the case. Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq., and Victoria Antion, Esq., represent Mr. Estep. Case No. 10-C-877 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Liverpool Cathedral Cost GBP200,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Liverpool Daily Post disclosed that more than GBP200,000 was spent clearing asbestos from Liverpool Cathedral in Liverpool, England, for the past 12 months. Moreover, the work to remove asbestos from the Cathedral is set to continue, although assurances were made the building will not be closed while renovations are carried out. Music at services is likely to suffer. Organists have been told not to use 641 of the organ's 10,268 pipes for fear of dislodging the carcinogenic fibers. The Dean of Liverpool Cathedral, the Very Reverend Justin Welby, said they had been advised to get rid of the asbestos by safety experts following an inspection on May 26, 2010, but there was no danger to the congregation. So far, GBP203,000 has been spent and it is estimated another GBP70,000 will be spent on making the area around the organ safe. After Christmas, scaffolding will go up in the South Case so the asbestos can be removed. It was originally put in as lagging around water pipes. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Newton High School --------------------------------------------------------------- The removal of asbestos from old Newton North High School in Newton, Mass., is part of a US$10 million demolition project, the Mesothelioma Resource Center reports. The demolition of the old Newton North High School will begin in the summer of 2010 and will continue through most of the coming year. As the asbestos in the building is widespread, and the location of the school is in a residential neighborhood, careful removal of asbestos is a particular concern to environmental officials. According to the Daily News Tribune, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection will oversee the asbestos abatement and disposal. The city also plans to hire an independent industrial hygienist to monitor the process. The 445,000-square-foot building will be gutted from the inside out as workers trained in removing asbestos will take out interior walls, flooring, ceiling and insulation where most of the hazardous material is located, city officials told the newspaper. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Ex-Electrician's Death Linked to Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at the Derby Coroner's Court heard that the death of Walter Jukes, a retired electrician from Derby, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports. Mr. Jukes had worked for various employers like Butlins, Wolverhampton Council, Bristol Hippodrome and Leicester Corporation. He retired in 1981 and died at Burton Lodge Nursing Home, in Derby, on Dec. 19, 2010. Coroner Dr. Robert Hunter told the inquest it was likely that the 82-year-old Mr. Jukes was exposed to asbestos while at work during the 1960s and 1970s. A postmortem examination found signs of pleural plaques -- an asbestos-related disease -- and asbestos fibers in Mr. Jukes' lungs. The cause of death was recorded as bronchial pneumonia due to asbestosis with heart disease playing a "significant" role in Mr. Jukes' death. Dr. Hunter recorded a verdict of death from industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Decries Quebec Gov't. Plan to Revive Mine --------------------------------------------------------------- The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization urges the Canadian Parliament to oppose Quebec government's offering of $58 million loan guarantee that would enable Jeffrey Mine Inc. to open up a new underground asbestos mine in Asbestos, Quebec, according to an ADAO press release dated June 23, 2010. The Company's present open-pit mine has run out of asbestos. With this government subsidy, the Jeffrey mine will be able to promulgate 200,000 tons of asbestos each year to developing countries for the next quarter of a century. The World Health Organization estimates the mineral, regardless of the type, causes 90,000 preventable deaths each year around the world. No reputable health agency has ever identified a concentration of asbestos that will not negatively affect health. These agencies include the U.S. Surgeon General, Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control/ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, and International Programme for Chemical Safety. Over 52 countries have banned asbestos, including all members of the European Union. South Korea and South Africa are also in the progress of implementing a ban. The United States and Canada lag far behind other industrialized nations in eliminating exposure. Richard Lemen, PhD, MSPH, Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS (Ret.) & Rear Admiral (Ret.) and ADAO Science Advisory Board Co-Chair, said, "ADAO is appalled at the recent development whereby the Canadian Government may provide $58 million to jump-start the Canadian Asbestos Industry. "After a century of knowledge concerning the health effects of asbestos and its devastating trail of disease and death around the world, such an initiative by Canada is a giant misstep backwards. By offering this subsidy, Quebec is endangering thousands of lives, both in Canada and worldwide." SBESTOS UPDATE: Ventura Apartments, Contractor Facing Penalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Biedul, the owner of an apartment complex in Ventura County, Calif., and contractor, Bill Bigler, who owns Quality Custom Painting, who removed asbestos popcorn ceilings from a number of apartments could face more than US$10,000 in fines for their actions, the Ventura County Star reports. Several tenants at the Ventura Village Green apartments on Telephone Road asked Mr. Biedul and Mr. Bigler, as the work was being done last May 2010, if there was asbestos in the ceiling. They were assured there was not, and they remained in their apartments as the work was done. However, when the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District tested some of the materials scraped from the ceiling, an elevated level of asbestos was found. Both Mr. Biedul and Mr. Bigler were issued multiple notices of violation that each carry fines as high as US$10,000, said Keith Duval, deputy air pollution control officer with the district. Mr. Biedul said he did not think there was any asbestos in the apartments that were built in 1964. He told Mr. Bigler to go ahead with work that involved replacing small parts of the ceilings in some apartments and completely scraping an entire ceiling in another. Mr. Duval said it is common knowledge among contractors that most popcorn ceilings installed before 1976 have some traces of asbestos. Prolonged exposure to asbestos can lead to cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. The problem started in May 2010 after leaking pipes in 36 town homes in the 150-unit complex dripped into the walls and ceilings. Mr. Bigler was called in to help repair the damaged walls and ceilings. He said Mr. Biedul told him there was no asbestos in the homes. Mr. Bigler does not have the necessary contractor's classification to work with asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Devon's Council Issues Warnings v. Fly-Tippers --------------------------------------------------------------- The East Devon District Council in Devon, England, warned fly- tippers that they face stiff penalties after recent incidents in Devon that saw asbestos sheeting being dumped, BBC News reports. The Council said households needed to be aware that they were responsible for disposing of waste properly. Anyone who had waste illegally dumped faced fines of up to GBP50,000 or a two-year jail term, the Council added. The Council said it had cleared waste from Bickham Wood, near Yarcombe, Honiton and Ottery St Mary. Corrugated asbestos sheets have been found dumped in Bickham Wood three times. The Council said it was working with South Somerset District Council on the matter because a road known as Old Coach Lane ran through the wood into south Somerset. About half a ton of asbestos has been picked up by Council teams from the woods adjacent to the lane, the Council said. The fly-tipping around Honiton and Ottery St Mary saw materials including garden waste, asbestos and general household clearance rubbish dumped. The Council said, "This is a legal requirement. You have a legal duty of care for your rubbish and waste, and if that rubbish is found fly-tipped, you can still be liable." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Angell Rejects Reports in Lawsuits v. CSX ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Faith Angell, on May 25, 2010, rejected reports from two former doctors in 173 asbestos exposure lawsuits filed against CSX Transportation, Inc., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports. Judge Angell gave Roger Lane, Esq., of Jacksonville, Fla., thirty days to obtain independent confirmation of diagnoses from Isabella Sharpe and Samir Najjar of Jacksonville. Judge Angell added that only certified practitioners can provide expert medical evidence. She wrote, "Since Drs. Sharpe and Najjar are not certified at this time, they cannot provide expert oral testimony and thus their reports cannot be used as evidence." Mr. Lane filed the suits at federal court in Georgia, on behalf of CSX workers. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation transferred the suits to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where District Judge Eduardo Robreno and magistrates manage tens of thousands of asbestos suits. CSX moved for summary judgment, arguing that neither Dr. Sharpe nor Dr. Najjar submitted sworn statements under penalty of perjury. CSX claimed their reports did not assert a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Judge Angell granted summary judgment, without prejudice. Randall Jordan, Esq., of St. Simons Island, Ga., represented CSX Transportation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Checking Claims at Holyoke Renovation Job --------------------------------------------------------------- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is probing an anonymous complaint that workers had found high levels of asbestos while working on a renovation project at Holyoke High School in Holyoke, Mass., Mesothelioma.com reports. However, the project manager on site has assured that testing was completed. He noted that regulations have been followed throughout the year, and that both the air and dust were tested. School Superintendent Eduardo B. Carballo noted, "These are serious allegations . . . but I am assured by the manager of the project that they are going to check it out." Company owner of Samsyd Window and Door Co., John Samysd, noted that one of his employees asked for caulk surrounding the high school's windows to be tested for asbestos. Three of the four samples tests displayed high levels of asbestos. Project designer for Forbes & Wheeler, Stephen W. Niec, said his firm had regularly tested the air and dust at the high school. However, Mr. Niec noted that, in light of the complaint, he would be returning to the high school to complete more tests. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Princess Elizabeth in Guernsey Contains Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos was uncovered in certain areas of the Princess Elizabeth Hospital in Guernsey, which is a British Crown Dependency, BBC News reports. Workers were told to wear protective clothing in plant rooms and service ducts after asbestos was found during a survey prior to refurbishment. The hospital said there was no suggestion any asbestos had entered public areas and patients and visitors were safe. The asbestos was previously used as lagging to pipe-work and insulation. A spokesman said, "There is no risk to members of the public from the materials identified." He said any staff that may have been exposed to asbestos had been informed. A specialist has been brought to deal with the asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buckles Legal Malpractice Lawsuit Goes to Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-related legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Judy Buckles against the law firm of Goldenberg Heller, Antognoli and Rowland of Edwardsville, Ill., is ongoing, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports. Mrs. Buckles is suing for the firm's failure to secure large enough settlements in her husband's mesothelioma claims. Mrs. Buckles originally filed her suit in 2001, and re-filed it five years later. She has also accused the firm of allowing some of her husband's claims to lapse. Both parties have argued over the role attorney John Simmons played in the claims. The Goldenberg defendants have even argued that it was the attorney's fault the claims had lapsed. At one point, several attorneys overlapped in representing Mrs. Buckles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Woman's Claims v. 144 Firms Filed on May 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joni L. Johnson, of Lexington, Ky., filed an asbestos lawsuit on May 17, 2010 against 144 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia reports. On Feb. 23, 2010, Ms. Johnson was diagnosed with mesothelioma. She claims her father was employed by the defendants from 1948 until 1976 as a pipefitter. Ms. Johnson claims she is a non-smoker. She seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved in the case. Victoria Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., John D. Hurst, Esq., and Joseph Satterley, Esq., represent Ms. Johnson. Case No. 10-C-893 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Small Heath Widow Calls For Help in Payout Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Clayton, of Small Heath, Birmingham, England, is calling for her late husband's for colleagues to get justice over his death stemming from asbestos exposure, the Birmingham Mail reports. John Clayton, who died at the age of 70, worked for two decades at Birmingham giants Lucas Aerospace but died six months after becoming unwell. A post mortem revealed it was from mesothelioma. An inquest found that Mr. Clayton was exposed to asbestos but an open verdict was returned in June 2008 as there was no clear evidence to show where he was exposed to the lethal asbestos fibers. Mrs. Clayton needs to piece together her husband's employment history to prove the exposure. Family solicitor Satinder Bains, from Irwin Mitchell, said, "The link between asbestos exposure and John's illness was only made after his death and Christine now faces the difficult task of putting together the pieces." Lucas had over 18,000 workers and 15 factories centered on Birmingham. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holbury Locals to Fight Plans on Hazard Storage ---------------------------------------------------------------- The residents of Holbury, Hampshire, England, are planning to fight controversial plans to store asbestos at a waste site that backs onto homes in a Hampshire village, the Southern Daily Echo reports. Solent Environmental Services wants to install a large-scale skip at its headquarters in Holbury as a temporary holding site for the asbestos. However, the scheme has already been attacked by some neighbors who say it is too close to peoples' homes and lies near a popular route to school. Company bosses insist the plan is safe and have offered to talk to any one who is concerned at their Long Lane offices. Under the plans, waste would be transferred to the Long Lane depot at the end of each day, with the 40 cubic yard roll-off skip emptied around every fortnight. The container would hold around six tons of waste before being taken to a secure disposal site. The firm needs permission from Hampshire County Council before the transfer station can be set up. If approved, the plans will go to Hampshire County Council's regulatory committee, who will make their decision on July 28, 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Cleanup at Ohio Grocery to Push Through --------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos piping and floor tiles will be removed from part of the Valu King Food Market grocery store building in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, as the Ohio Department of Development has awarded the city with a US$415,000 grant to fund the abatement, Mesothelioma.com reports. Reynoldsburg Development Director, Lucas Haire, said, "Hopefully, through the grant, the cleanup will make it a much more attractive space to lease out. Most retailers that come in want all of the asbestos removed from the building, but the cost deters developers." The 49,600-square-foot building is considered a Brownfield because it contains hazardous materials that prevent it from being used for future development, reports the Columbus Local Record. Mr. Haire noted that developer Red Raider Capital LLC remediated the 32,000 square feet of space it occupies, without state funding. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Seekonk Bldg. to be Tested for Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- The former town hall of Seekonk, Mass., is riddled with mold and must be tested for asbestos, Mesothelioma.com reports. Although the floods of late March 2010 have subsided, it is clear that the water has affected the building. The old town hall was said to have taken on four feet of water during the storm. The source of the leak is still trying to be determined, however, a substantial amount of mold has already grown in the town hall's basement. In January 2010, town administrator Michael Carroll approached the selectmen about testing the building for lead paint and asbestos. To do so, it would have cost US$1,800. At the time, the selectmen voted against doing so. However, weeks after the selectmen had voted against testing, Mr. Carroll learned that the Department of Environmental Protection requires such action before a move with the building is made. If the building is asbestos ridden, abatement would need to occur. The selectmen have now decided to test for levels of asbestos and lead in the building. The study is being conducted by RI Analytical, a private environmental firm, according to EastBayRI.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, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, 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 * * *