/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100708.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 133 Headlines APPLE INC: Offers Free Software Upgrade for iPhone 4 ARIZONA: American Bar Assoc. Files Amicus Brief on Immigration Law B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends "Saved Text Messages" Suit B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Over "Data Services" B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends "License Violation" Suit B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Over "Exit Fee" B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Suit Over Full Exit Fees B COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks Radiation Exposure Insurance B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Suit Over Antenna Sites B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Suit in Central District Court B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Defends Four Suits Over Call Cards B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Int'l Defends Suit Over Dollar Billing B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Int'l Defends Suit Over Services Fees B COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit Over Technical Support Fees B COMMUNICATIONS: DBS Defends Suit Over Television Broadcasts BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Forcible Entry and Deceptive Practices BANK OF NEW YORK: NY Court Dismisses Suit Over Lost Backup Tapes CANADA: Class Suit Mulled Against Police Over G20 Summit Arrests CASEY'S GENERAL: 2nd Takeover Class Suit Filed in Iowa COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suits Over Electricity Rates COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suits by Minas Gerais Public Atty. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suit Over Conduct Adjustment Pact ELDERS LIMITED: Talks to Lawyers as ASIC Begins Probe ENERGY TRANSFER: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Traders' Suit FLORIDA: Class Suit Mulled Over Law Banning Sale of Bongs KILLINGTON LTD: Pass Holders Appeal Ruling Dismissing Class Suit KOREAN AIR: Cargo Firms Mull Class Suit vs. Airlines Over Cartel L'OREAL USA: Accused of False Advertising and Unfair Competition MAIN ROADS: Trilby Misso Prepares Suit to Clear Roads of Trees MOTRICITY INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Notice Sanction in Walker Suit SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT: Tex. Sup. Ct. Allows Quixtar Suit to Proceed SK ENERGY: Kim & Kims Firm to Sue LPG Firms Over Price-Fixing ********* APPLE INC: Offers Free Software Upgrade for iPhone 4 ---------------------------------------------------- As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Monday, at least five class actions have been filed over Apple Inc.'s iPhone 4 reception problems. The suits seek damages for negligence, breach of warranty, defective design, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and deceptive trade. "Defendants have failed to provide consumer support to assist iPhone 4 customers regarding this defect," according to one lawsuit filed by Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff. "Customers are left with three options: hold their phones in an awkward and unnatural manner, return their phones and pay a 10 percent 'restocking fee,' or purchase Apple's own 'bumper' cases for their phones, costing $29.99 in addition to the premium they have already paid for the phones themselves, which may somewhat ameliorate the iPhone 4's defects." On July 2, 2010, Apple issued a open letter to users of iPhone 4: Dear iPhone 4 Users, The iPhone 4 has been the most successful product launch in Apple's history. It has been judged by reviewers around the world to be the best smartphone ever, and users have told us that they love it. So we were surprised when we read reports of reception problems, and we immediately began investigating them. Here is what we have learned. To start with, gripping almost any mobile phone in certain ways will reduce its reception by 1 or more bars. This is true of iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, as well as many Droid, Nokia and RIM phones. But some users have reported that iPhone 4 can drop 4 or 5 bars when tightly held in a way which covers the black strip in the lower left corner of the metal band. This is a far bigger drop than normal, and as a result some have accused the iPhone 4 of having a faulty antenna design. At the same time, we continue to read articles and receive hundreds of emails from users saying that iPhone 4 reception is better than the iPhone 3GS. They are delighted. This matches our own experience and testing. What can explain all of this? We have discovered the cause of this dramatic drop in bars, and it is both simple and surprising. Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength. For example, we sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2 bars. Users observing a drop of several bars when they grip their iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with very weak signal strength, but they don't know it because we are erroneously displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place. To fix this, we are adopting AT&T's recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone's bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area. We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see. We will issue a free software update within a few weeks that incorporates the corrected formula. Since this mistake has been present since the original iPhone, this software update will also be available for the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G. We have gone back to our labs and retested everything, and the results are the same -- the iPhone 4's wireless performance is the best we have ever shipped. For the vast majority of users who have not been troubled by this issue, this software update will only make your bars more accurate. For those who have had concerns, we apologize for any anxiety we may have caused. As a reminder, if you are not fully satisfied, you can return your undamaged iPhone to any Apple Retail Store or the online Apple Store within 30 days of purchase for a full refund. We hope you love the iPhone 4 as much as we do. Thank you for your patience and support. Apple Press Contacts: Natalie Harrison Apple E-mail: harri@apple.com Telephone: (408) 862-0565 Steve Dowling Apple E-mail: dowling@apple.com Telephone: (408) 974-1896 According to intomobile.com, Apple is waiving 10% restocking fee for returned iPhones. ARIZONA: American Bar Assoc. Files Amicus Brief on Immigration Law ------------------------------------------------------------------ The American Bar Association on June 30 filed a friend-of-the- court brief urging the federal district court in Arizona to bar enforcement of the state's recently enacted law authorizing police to stop individuals who they suspect are in the United States illegally and to detain them if they are unable to produce proof of citizenship or legal immigration status. ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm said it is "extraordinary" for the association to file an amicus brief in a case at the district court level, rather than waiting for it to reach an appellate court, but "an extraordinary law . . . requires extraordinary action." She vowed the association will "oppose, very strongly, any incursion on equal protection [or] substantive due process, by such things as racial profiling and segmenting groups out." The law runs afoul of fundamental ABA positions opposing racial profiling and supporting federal preemption of immigration law, she added. The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in the case of Friendly House v. Michael B. Whiting. The brief lists four reasons to block enforcement of the state law. By requiring that police officers with a "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States verify the person's immigration status, the law will increase use of racial profiling, according to the brief. A qualification purporting to limit use of race, color or national origin in applying the law "will not inhibit the use of racial profiling in apprehension and detention," it says, noting that "racial profiling undermines respect for the rule of law and the criminal justice system." By mandating detention of suspect individuals until their immigration status can be verified, the law will cause unlawful and unreasonable detentions, according to the brief. "[T]he ABA is deeply concerned that these detentions will take place without the basic due process protections and the checks and balances that should be taken for granted under our legal system," it says. Also, because U.S. citizens are not required to carry identification, the law "will necessarily result in the detention of citizens who have committed no criminal offense but do not have identification on their persons when stopped." Because "Arizona will not -- and cannot claim that it will -- be operating under a delegation of authority from the federal government," the state will be required to appoint defense counsel at state expense for individuals who cannot afford to hire their own. This "will necessarily result in an increased burden on Arizona's defense attorneys and indigent defense system," as well as on courts and prosecutors, says the brief. Finally, "[t]he U.S. Constitution has vested exclusive power over naturalization matters with the federal government," and the Arizona law represents a state attempt to usurp that authority, the brief argues. Drew Singer, writing for JURIST, reports that the Mexican government last month filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the ACLU suit, claiming a substantial interest in ensuring its "bilateral diplomatic relations" with the US remain "transparent, consistent and reliable, and not frustrated by the actions of individual US states." The government also claims an interest in ensuring that its citizens are "accorded human and civil rights when present in the US in accordance with federal immigration law." The Arizona immigration bill requires that police seek proof of a person's immigration status if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The law is set to go into effect in January 2011. B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends "Saved Text Messages" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pelephone defends a suit alleging that it unlawfully saves text messages sent via its network, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. In July 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Central Region District Court. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief that Pelephone unlawfully saves text messages sent via its network, an order that Pelephone delete the information, an injunction to prevent Pelephone from saving text messages in the future and monetary relief in an amount to be determined by the Court. The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Over "Data Services" ------------------------------------------------------------- Pelephone defends a suit seeking the refund of amounts allegedly unlawfully collected by the respondents for data services provided by Shamir Systems Ltd., and Unicell Advanced Cellular Solutions Ltd., and Unicell, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. In July 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Pelephone, Shamir, and Unicell. The plaintiffs are seeking the refund of amounts allegedly unlawfully collected by the respondents (which are charged through the cellular bill issued by Pelephone) for data services provided by Shamir and Unicell. The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class action, is approximately NIS200 million ($53 million). The plaintiffs are also seeking an order instructing the respondents to discontinue the collection of such amount. The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends "License Violation" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Pelephone defends a suit alleging violation of its license, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. In October 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Pelephone. The plaintiff claims that Pelephone is in violation of its license in connection with benefits offered to customers and customer commitment periods. The plaintiff is seeking compensation in a total amount, if the lawsuit if certified as a class action, of approximately NIS331 million ($87.7 million). The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Defends Suit Over "Exit Fee" -------------------------------------------------------- Pelephone defends a suit seeking cancellation and a refund of the exit fee collected, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. In December 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Pelephone. The plaintiffs are seeking cancellation and a refund of the exit fee which Pelephone charges subscribers who wish to disconnect from the service during the commitment period. The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class action, is approximately NIS50 million ($13.25 million). The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Suit Over Full Exit Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Pelephone faces a suit alleging that it unlawfully collected a full exit fee from customers who terminated their agreement during the commitment period instead of a proportionate exit fee, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. In February 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Jerusalem District Court against Pelephone. The plaintiffs are seeking the refund of amounts that Pelephone allegedly unlawfully collected as a full exit fee from customers who terminated their agreement during the commitment period instead of a proportionate exit fee. In addition, the plaintiffs are seeking the refund of amounts that Pelephone allegedly unlawfully collected for an exit fee for a basic television package over cellular despite the fact that the package was given to the plaintiff free of charge. The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class action, is approximately NIS50 million ($13.25 million). The plaintiffs are also seeking an order instructing Bezeq to cease collecting such charges. The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks Radiation Exposure Insurance --------------------------------------------------------- Pelephone faces a suit alleging that it failed to procure insurance covering liability for bodily harm caused by exposure to cellular radiation, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. In March 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Pelephone and Cellcom. The plaintiffs have asserted an adjust enrichment claim against Pelephone on the basis that in alleged violation of its license, Pelephone has allegedly failed to procure insurance covering liability for bodily harm caused by exposure to cellular radiation. The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a class action, is approximately NIS4.2 billion ($1.11 billion), of which NIS2.1 billion is sought from Pelephone. The plaintiffs are also seeking an order instructing Pelephone to obtain such insurance. The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Suit Over Antenna Sites --------------------------------------------------------- Pelephone faces a suit alleging violation of duty to establish cellular antenna sites in the required amount and spread, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. In May 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Central District Court against Pelephone and three other cellular operators. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated their duty to establish cellular antenna sites in the required amount and spread, that they violated their duty to test, repair and provide notice regarding levels of non- ionizing radiation emitted from cellular phones after they have been repaired, and also violated their duty to provide a warning with respect to the hazard involved in the holding of cellular phones. The plaintiffs are seeking aggregate compensation from Pelephone of approximately NIS3.68 billion ($0.97 billion) and aggregate compensation from the defendants of approximately NIS12 billion ($3.17 billion). The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Pelephone Faces Suit in Central District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pelephone faces a suit alleging that it unlawfully charges its customers for several services that were not requested by the customers, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. B Communications, on April 14, 2010, completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq. In June 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Central District Court against Pelephone. The plaintiff claims that Pelephone unlawfully charges its customers for several services that were not requested by the customers and transferred customers' details to third party suppliers without their consent. The plaintiff is seeking compensation for personal damages in the amount of NIS958 (approximately $252). The total amount of the lawsuit if certified as a class action was not indicated in the lawsuit, but the lawsuit estimates it would be hundreds of millions of NIS. The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Defends Four Suits Over Call Cards ---------------------------------------------------------- Bezeq International defends four lawsuits in connection with its international calling cards, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. These four lawsuits and motions for certification as a class action were filed against Bezeq International by plaintiffs who claim that Bezeq International's international calling cards to certain foreign destinations provide less than the amount of time indicated on the cards. The plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits also allege that Bezeq International unlawfully deducted the time spent when unsuccessfully attempting to call someone from the card and formed a cartel with other international communication companies that raised the prices of calling cards. The plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits also petitioned the Court to order Bezeq International to cease the foregoing acts. The hearing in the motions to certify the lawsuits as a class action is underway. The lawsuits are being heard together in the Tel Aviv District Court, although their proceedings have not formally been consolidated. The four suits are: -- a suit filed in April 2008 with respect to international calling cards to Nepal. The plaintiffs' are seeking compensation in the aggregate amount of NIS115 million ($30.5 million), if the lawsuit is certified as a class action; -- a suit filed in April 2008 with respect to international calling cards to the Philippines. The plaintiffs' are seeking compensation in the aggregate amount of NIS566 million ($151 million), if the lawsuit is certified as a class action; -- a suit filed originally in the Central Region District Court in April 2008 with respect to international calling cards to Thailand. The lawsuit was subsequently transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation in the aggregate amount of NIS478 million ($127 million), if the lawsuit is certified as a class action; and -- a suit filed in June 2008 with respect to international calling cards to Thailand. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation in the aggregate amount of NIS478 million ($127 million), if the lawsuit is certified as a class action. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Int'l Defends Suit Over Dollar Billing -------------------------------------------------------------- Bezeq International defends a suit alleging that it unlawfully charged customers who were being billed based on a dollar tariff, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In July 2008, two lawsuits and motions for certification as a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Bezeq International by customers of Bezeq International. The plaintiffs claim that Bezeq International unlawfully charged customers who were being billed based on a dollar tariff on the basis of a higher dollar exchange rate than the representative dollar exchange rate. Since the facts and legal arguments in both cases are similar, with the consent of the parties, one of the lawsuits was withdrawn and the first lawsuit filed will be heard. The lawsuit does not specify the amount claimed, but the plaintiffs estimate the damages to be tens of millions of NIS. Following a preliminary hearing, the plaintiffs asked the Court to reduce the class action group to those customers of Bezeq International who were originally customers of "Bezeq Zahav." The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Bezeq Int'l Defends Suit Over Services Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Bezeq International defends a suit seeking reimbursement of excess amounts allegedly unlawfully collected, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On May 4, 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against Bezeq International. The plaintiff is seeking reimbursement of excess amounts allegedly unlawfully collected by Bezeq International for services that the plaintiff claims he did not order and for the increase of the rate for Internet access after the first year. The plaintiff is seeking personal compensation in the amount of NIS2,800 ($745) and if certified as a class action, in the amount of NIS216 million ($58 million) for the entire class. The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit Over Technical Support Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Bezeq International defends a suit seeking reimbursement of the amounts allegedly unlawfully collection for call made to the technical support call centers, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Jan. 24, 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Central Region District Court against Bezeq International and four other communication licensees. The plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement of the amounts allegedly unlawfully collection for call made to the technical support call centers. The total amount of the claim against Bezeq International, if certified as a class action, is NIS105 million ($28 million). The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. B COMMUNICATIONS: DBS Defends Suit Over Television Broadcasts ------------------------------------------------------------- DBS Satellite Service (1998) Ltd., defends a suit relating to its television broadcasts, according to B Communications Ltd.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Oct. 3, 2007, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against DBS. The plaintiff claims that due to reception disturbances in DBS's broadcasts in September 2007, daily malfunctions and long interruptions in television broadcasts were caused to DBS's subscribers and that DBS's service center was not operational during such time. The plaintiffs are seeking aggregate compensation of approximately NIS121 million ($32 million) in the lawsuit, if certified as a class action. The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway. B Communications Ltd., formerly 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. -- http://www.012smile.com/-- is a communication services provider in Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice services. The Company operates in two segments: broadband and traditional voice services. The company's broadband services include broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services, specialized data services and server hosting, as well as services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband and a wireless fidelity network of hotspots across Israel. Its traditional voice services include outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming and signaling and calling card services. The company offers its services to residential and business customers, as well as to Israeli cellular operators and international communication services providers, or carriers through its integrated multipurpose network, which allows the company to provide services to almost all of the homes and businesses in Israel. BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Forcible Entry and Deceptive Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Asif Altaf, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bank of America National Association, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-28476 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 1, 2010), accuses the bank holding company of employing unlawful actions to collect from its home loan borrowers, in violation of the Illinois Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, the common law of trespass and negligence, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mr. Altaf narrates that on multiple occasions in March and April 2009, Bank of America by its agents including Doe defendants operating at its direction, without his knowledge or consent, forcibly entered or attempted to enter his home located at 5045 W Roscoe St., Chicago, IL 60641, broke down his door, attempted to change his locks, forcing him and his family to move to a new address in May 2009. Mr. Altaf seeks to prevent defendants from continuing to forcibly and unlawfully enter the homes of borrowers, whose home loans are in default, without first securing entry of a judgment of foreclosure. The Plaintiff is represented by: THE CHICAGOLAND & SUBURBAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 248 S. Marion St., Suite 104 Oak Park, IL 60302 Telephone: (815) 501-1345 - and - THE LAW OFFICE OF KELLI DUDLEY 9130 S. Houston Ave., 1st Floor Chicago, IL 60617-4319 - and - Ilan Chorowsky, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC 505 N. LaSalle, Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 787-2717 BANK OF NEW YORK: NY Court Dismisses Suit Over Lost Backup Tapes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brendon M. Tavelli, Esq., at Proskauer Rose LLP, writes that Judge Richard Berman of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York on June 25, 2010, granted summary judgment to The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., dismissing in its entirety a putative class action lawsuit arising from the loss of backup tapes containing personal information in the spring of 2008. Judge Berman rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that they had standing to pursue their claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty as well as for violations of certain state consumer protection laws. He held that "Plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are future- oriented, hypothetical and conjectural." The court also held that even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs could be said to have standing to pursue such claims, each of their claims would fail because the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered any actual harm as a result of the tape loss incident. The case is Tom Hammond, William H. Wicks, Linda Young, Lois Giordano, Debbie Bernstein, Alyson Kanney, and Ken Witek, on behalf of themselves and al others similarly situated, v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., case no. 08-cv-06060 (S.D.N.Y.)., and a copy of the decision is available at: http://is.gd/dhaF2 CANADA: Class Suit Mulled Against Police Over G20 Summit Arrests ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that various individuals and groups have said they are considering a class- action lawsuit or other civil action against police over the mass detention of people and widespread use of police force during the G20 summit. The report says groups such as Amnesty International and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have condemned police tactics and called for an independent inquiry. According to the report, Mark Calzavara, of the Council of Canadians, said police detained more than 1,000 people after some protesters broke windows and burned a few police cruisers. "When the police are the ones that are breaking the law, that's when all of society has to really start to pay attention," Mr. Calzavara said. The report says the police have defended their actions as necessary in light of the brief orgy of vandalism that occurred on the Saturday afternoon. Toronto police Chief Bill Blair has said as many as 1,000 anarchists came to "attack" the summit but were stymied by the potent security. "When they couldn't attack the summit, they attacked the city, and they became a mob," Mr. Blair said last week. "A mob is policed a little differently than a lawful, peaceful protest." While the vast majority of those detained were released without charge within 24 hours, about 250 people still face charges and more than a dozen remained in custody Monday, according to the Movement Defence Committee. CASEY'S GENERAL: 2nd Takeover Class Suit Filed in Iowa ------------------------------------------------------ A purported class action complaint was filed on June 29, 2010, in the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County on behalf of a putative class of Casey's General Stores, Inc., shareholders against Casey's and its Board of Directors. The Company said in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with Alimentation Couche- Tard Inc.'s unsolicited offer for the Company, and seeks, among other things: -- an order requiring the Board to undertake an evaluation of alternative transactions and to redeem the Rights; -- an injunction preventing any material transactions or changes to Casey's business and assets other than under court supervision; and -- an award of damages as well as fees, expenses and costs. The action is the second purported class action complaint filed in the Iowa State Court with respect to the Offer. Jeff Eckhoff at The Des Moines Register reports that West Des Moines attorney J. Barton Goplerud, Esq., sued Casey's on behalf of veterinarian Richard Howie and all other similarly situated Casey's shareholders. Counsel may be reached at: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 Documents in the newest case allege that Casey's chief executive and board members have breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by refusing to negotiate with Couche-Tard. Couche-Tard in Quebec, Canada, has made an unsolicited offer through its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, ACT Acquisition Sub, Inc., an Iowa corporation, to purchase all outstanding shares of common stock, no par value per share, of Casey's, together with the associated Rights, for $36.00 per Casey's Common Share in cash. According to the Register, Casey's leaders contend the $36-per- share, $1.9 billion offer made public April 9 is too low. "A fully negotiated transaction will likely deliver higher value for Casey's stockholders than a hostile acquisition," the lawsuit says, according to the Register. "The board is obligated to negotiate and explore Couche-Tard's offer in order to define what course is in the best interests of Casey's public stockholders." The Register notes the lawsuit comes one day after ClearBridge Advisors, a longtime Casey's shareholder, sent a letter urging Casey's to open talks with Couche-Tard. On April 28, 2010, a complaint was filed asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Offer; however, pursuant to a stipulation between Casey's and the plaintiff in such action, Casey's need not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until such time as the plaintiff either files an amended complaint or informs Casey's that it does not intend to amend its initial complaint. In the initial complaint, the plaintiff in that action seeks an order requiring the Board to place Casey's up for auction and/or to conduct a market check and requiring Casey's to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts to the class before the completion of an acquisition; a declaration that the Board has breached its fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class; and an award of fees, expenses and costs. Casey's and the Board believe the claims in both actions are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suits Over Electricity Rates ---------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais, a/k/a CEMIG, defends lawsuits in connection with the rates it charges its customers. The company is a defendant in lawsuits and class actions brought by consumers, consumer rights groups and the office of the public prosecutor of Minas Gerais contesting the rates the company charges its consumers, the application of the rate increases determined by Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica (ANEEL), the inflationary index used to increase the company's rates and the rate subsidies granted to low income consumers. These lawsuits involve claims for the suspension of the rate increases and for the reimbursement to the company's consumers of twice the amount of any additional rates the company collected. The company relates that all of its rate increases are granted based on ANEEL's prior authorization. No additional details were disclosed in the company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais a.k.a. Cemig -- http://www.cemig.com.br/-- is an electric energy utility in Brazil. Cemig's concession area extends throughout nearly 96.7% of Minas Gerais. Cemig owns and operates 52 power plants, of which six are in partnership with private enterprises, relying on a predominantly hydroelectric energy matrix. Electric energy is produced to supply more than 17 million people living in the state's 774 municipalities. In addition to those 52 plants, another three are currently under construction. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suits by Minas Gerais Public Atty. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais, a/k/a CEMIG, defends four class actions filed by the Minas Gerais Public Attorney. The suits seek an order against the company to invest at least 0.5% of the total operational revenue of the business year prior to that of the investment on the protection and environmental preservation of the water tables of municipalities related to CEMIG's generation plants, since 1997. This claim is based on the State of Minas Gerais Law No. 12,503, issued on May 31, 1997, and its likelihood of loss is assessed as "possible". CEMIG has not yet assessed the amount involved in such lawsuits, according to the company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais a.k.a. Cemig -- http://www.cemig.com.br/-- is an electric energy utility in Brazil. Cemig's concession area extends throughout nearly 96.7% of Minas Gerais. Cemig owns and operates 52 power plants, of which six are in partnership with private enterprises, relying on a predominantly hydroelectric energy matrix. Electric energy is produced to supply more than 17 million people living in the state's 774 municipalities. In addition to those 52 plants, another three are currently under construction. COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Defends Suit Over Conduct Adjustment Pact --------------------------------------------------------------- Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais, a/k/a CEMIG, defends a class action in connection with the Conduct Adjustment Undertaking signed between the company and the Public Attorneys' Office. A class action was brought against CEMIG and nine other defendants requesting nullification of the Conduct Adjustment Undertaking (TAC) signed between the Public Attorneys' Office and the company, ordering the restitution to public funds of the amounts transferred to the defendant companies for implementation of the Light for All (Luz para Todos) program. The application for interim remedy was refused, and the plaintiff appealed to the Regional Federal Appeals Court (Tribunal Regional Federal). The updated amount involved, of BRL1.654 billion, as of Dec. 31, 2009, refers to the request for restitution of the amounts received by the companies that carried out the services contracted by CEMIG in order to comply with such governmental program, and fees of counsel. The class action has been sent to the State Court, after the Federal Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The chance of loss is assessed as "possible," according to the company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais a.k.a. Cemig -- http://www.cemig.com.br/-- is an electric energy utility in Brazil. Cemig's concession area extends throughout nearly 96.7% of Minas Gerais. Cemig owns and operates 52 power plants, of which six are in partnership with private enterprises, relying on a predominantly hydroelectric energy matrix. Electric energy is produced to supply more than 17 million people living in the state's 774 municipalities. In addition to those 52 plants, another three are currently under construction. ELDERS LIMITED: Talks to Lawyers as ASIC Begins Probe ----------------------------------------------------- Elders Limited said it has been advised by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission that ASIC is conducting enquiries in relation to compliance by the Company with its continuous disclosure obligations concerning the Company's recent profit downgrade announcement relating to the September 30, 2010 financial year. ASIC has specifically confirmed with the Company that its enquiries should not be construed as an indication by ASIC that a contravention of the law has occurred, and nor should it be considered a reflection upon any person or entity. Elders is co-operating with ASIC in its inquiries. Elders is committed to its continuous disclosure and governance obligations and is of the view it has complied with these obligations in full. Rebecca Urban at The Australian reports that Elders surprised investors on Monday by admitting the ASIC probe. Ms. Urban relates that Elders chief executive Malcolm Jackman said a letter had been received late on Friday, prompting the company to seek legal advice over the weekend. "We took a view that when ASIC is making inquiries around your continuous disclosure, it's a sensible thing to disclose that," Mr. Jackman said of his decision to advise the market of the matter. "And given the fact that we're under a high degree of public scrutiny at the moment, we decided that it was the right thing to do." Mr. Jackman said the company believed that it had complied fully with its continuous disclosure obligations. He also stressed that the commission had advised that its interest did not imply a criticism of the company or that any wrongdoing had occurred on the part of the company or any of its employees. "We're working co-operatively with ASIC and we think that they will quickly come to the conclusion that we have done everything by the book," he said. ASIC declined to comment on the matter. According to the Class Action Reporter on June 28, 2010, Ray Brindal at Dow Jones Newswires said shareholders of Elders have approached law firm Slater & Gordon asking it to investigate a possible class action against the agribusiness. The shareholders are to cite poor disclosure and big falls in Elders' share price. Litigation funder Comprehensive Legal Funding LLC will fund the investigation by Slater & Gordon, the law firm said in a statement. ENERGY TRANSFER: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Traders' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Shiffman, Esq., and Jonathan Rotenberg, Esq., at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP write that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of a putative class action brought by a group of natural gas futures and options contract traders under the Commodities Exchange Act. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants manipulated the natural gas futures and options prices in violation of the CEA by selling large quantities of natural gas for delivery at one delivery hub, the Houston Ship Channel, to depress the price of the natural gas at that hub to an artificial level. The defendants allegedly intended to profit from the difference in price at that hub and the Henry Hub, the hub where delivery was to be made for all natural gas contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants' price manipulation caused the NYMEX price to decrease, resulting in a loss to plaintiffs, who traded futures and options on NYMEX. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's securities fraud claim before the district court. In granting the motion to dismiss, the district court reasoned that plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants specifically intended to manipulate the price of natural gas at Henry Hub, as required for a private right of action under the CEA. The plaintiffs argued that they had sufficiently alleged a CEA claim by alleging that the defendants intended to manipulate the price of the underlying commodity, natural gas, knowing that their manipulation would result in a decrease in the price at the Henry Hub and thereby affect the commodity contracts traded on NYMEX. In affirming the district court's dismissal, the Fifth Circuit rejected plaintiffs' contention that defendants' purported knowledge that their actions would ultimately affect prices on the Henry Hub was sufficient to state a claim under the CEA. In so holding, the court noted that the "effect on the Henry Hub, and NYMEX futures contracts, was merely an unintended consequence of the defendants' manipulative trading" and, as a result, the defendants lacked the requisite specific intent. The case is Richard Hershey; Roberto E. Calle Gracey, v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.; Energy Transfer Company; ETC Marketing, Ltd.; Houston Pipeline Company, case no. 09-20651 (5th Cir.), and a copy of the decision is available at: http://is.gd/dhbIH FLORIDA: Class Suit Mulled Over Law Banning Sale of Bongs --------------------------------------------------------- The Broward-Palm Beach New Times reports that a class-action lawsuit is underway challenging the constitutionality of a new Florida law banning sales of bongs, pipes and other devices that could be used for smoking marijuana -- but only by stores that receive 25% of their annual revenue from the sale of such items. Alexander Klausner, writing for The Independent Florida Alligator, says local attorney Ed Garvin, Esq., questioned the constitutionality in the bill. "You're not basically criminalizing behavior, per se," he said. "You're criminalizing behavior if it represents too large a portion of what you do, which is a bit odd." Alligator also reports that Robert Rush, Esq., lawyer for Modern Age Tobacco and Gift Shop Inc., said he thinks the law would be upheld because of legal precedents set by regulations of tobacco and alcohol products. Mr. Rush also said the shop he represents will not be affected because its bong and pipe sales are less than 25% of its total inventory and sales. KILLINGTON LTD: Pass Holders Appeal Ruling Dismissing Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Edwards, writing for Rutland Herald in Vermont, reports that holders of so-called "lifetime" ski passes at Killington Resort have taken an appeal from Judge Christina Reiss' order dismissing a class action lawsuit against the Resort to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The passes were issued in the early years of the ski area as an incentive to attract investors. Over the years, the season passes were sold for thousands of dollars with subsequent owners of the resort honoring the passes. However, that practice stopped when SP Land Co. and Powdr Corp. purchased the resort's assets from American Skiing Company in May 2007 for $83.5 million. In November 2007, four investor pass holders sued SP Land Co. and the resort's operating company, Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, and former owners of the resort to have the passes reinstated. Powdr Corp. was not named in the lawsuit. The suit argues that based on the wording of the investor passes, owners of the resort are bound to honor the passes which entitled the holder "to the free use of all ski lifts operated by (Sherburne) Killington Ltd. at (Killington Basin) Killington Ski Area so long as the corporation shall operate in that area under an agreement with the state of Vermont." Two types of investor passes were issued. Between 1956 and 1961, an investor received a season pass for each $1,000 invested. The so-called AT pass could be transferred or sold once a year. Investments made between 1961 and 1968, entitled the investor/pass holder to transfer what was known as a P pass only once while the pass remained in effect. Judge Reiss in May held that the resort owner was under no legal obligation to honor the investor season passes when it purchased Killington Resort in 2007. "We're very, very disappointed," Killington resident Martin Post said Monday. "Our attorneys feel that there were a number of issues which are appealable and consequently we have made the decision, along with our attorneys, to go to the 2nd Circuit Court and appeal Judge Reiss' decision." Mr. Post and his wife, Jill, paid approximately $3,500 each for their passes 20 years ago. Mr. Post said their case may have been hurt when it was transferred from Judge William Sessions to Reiss, who took her seat on the federal bench in January. Mr. Post said that Judge Sessions was more familiar with the case. The Posts and the other plaintiffs are represented by the Middlebury law firm of Langrock Sperry & Wool. The litigation includes 1,243 pass holders -- 342 yearly transferable passes and 901 passes that could be transferred a single time. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the "corporation" refers to any subsequent operator of the ski area. Sherburne Corp. and its successor, Killington Ltd., continued to operate as entities under S-K-I Ltd. and later American Skiing Company. But when SP Land Co. and Powdr Corp. teamed up to buy the resort's assets from American Skiing Co., Killington Ltd. ceased to exist. In granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, Judge Reiss found that the language contained in the investor pass certificates "is clear and unambiguous." "The only reasonable interpretation of that language is that it requires Killington Ltd. to provide the designated passholder free use of all ski lifts operated by Killington Ltd. at the Killington Ski Area so long as it operates in that area . . . ," Judge Reiss wrote in her 31-page decision. Judge Reiss continued that the term corporation "clearly refers to the named corporations, Sherburne and Killington Ltd." and that the deal was structured as an asset sale and not a transfer of stock. "The plain language of the AT and P passes reveals no intention to bind Killington Ltd's successors . . . To the contrary, Killington Ltd.'s obligations under the passes clearly terminate with its cessation of operations in the area." She also noted that in its purchase agreement with American Skiing Co., SP Land agreed to honor 37 'lifetime' passes, which did not include the names of the plaintiffs or the names of any class members. (A number of those lifetime passes were issued over the years to former employees). Judge Reiss went on to say that in an asset sale, "the buyer does not ordinarily assume responsibility for the debts of the seller." Karen McAndrew, Esq., who represents Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, said the summary judgment in the resort's favor did not come as a surprise. "We thought she analyzed the legal issues very carefully and we thought she reached the right result," said Ms. McAndrew, a partner in the Burlington law firm of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew. She said the investor pass certificates stated very clearly that the passes were valid "so long as the Sherburne Corp., and that became Killington Ltd., continued to operate the lifts there" and that neither corporation exists today. Ms. McAndrew may be reached at: Karen McAndrew, Esq. DINSE, KNAPP & MCANDREW, P.C. P.O. Box 988 209 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05402 Telephone: (802) 864-5751 Facsimile: (802) 864-1967 E-mail: kmcandrew@DINSE.COM KOREAN AIR: Cargo Firms Mull Class Suit vs. Airlines Over Cartel ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cho Chung-un, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that a group of cargo transport companies in Korea is to file a class-action lawsuit against 21 international carriers recently blamed for fixing the price of foreign freight services over the years. The Korea Fair Trade Commission issued in May a combined KRW120 billion in fines on 19 local and foreign freight service providers from 16 different countries -- which newly introduced or changed their fuel surcharges between 1999 and 2007 -- for their association in years-long price fixing practices. Two international air carriers received a warning. According to the Korea Herald, the 19 airlines fined are: Korean Air, Asiana Airlines, Lufthansa, Malaysia Airlines, Swiss International Air Lines, Singapore Airlines, Air France, Air France-KLM, Air Hong Kong, British Airways, Japan Airlines, Nippon Cargo Airlines, All Nippon Airways, Cargolux Airlines, Cathay Pacific, KLM Airlines, Qantas Airways, Thai Airlines and Polar Airlines. Kim Tong-hyung at The Korea Times says the FTC probe was an extension of investigations pushed by anti-trust regulators from the United States and the European Union. The Korea Times further reports that local carriers Korean Air and Asiana were hit with the heaviest penalties of KRW48.74 billion and KRW20.66 billion, respectively, although Korean Air's fine was discounted to KRW22.19 billion after it was granted leniency for providing crucial evidence to the investigation. The Korea Herald says two transport companies in Busan, which claim they are cartel victims, are looking for more companies hurt by price-fixing practices by global air carriers and are willing to take legal action. The Korea Times reports that Lee Dae-soon, Esq., at the Chon & Lee Law Corporation, a law firm preparing for the class action suits against the airlines, said, "Freight companies sustained the most obvious damage in the price-fixing schemes of the airlines and we believe more companies will join. We are also considering pushing the class action jointly with companies under the Korea Shippers' Council (KCS)." The KCS, a sub-organization of the Korea International Trade Association, is a leading industry lobby of freight companies. "Usually, the fines set by anti-trust regulators are equivalent to 2 to 3 percent of the illicit earnings cumulated by the companies. So naturally, it would be reasonable to claim for a level of compensation about 30 times larger than the fines," said Lee, suggesting that his law firm would be chasing a max 3.58 trillion won payday, according to Korea Times. According to the Korea Herald, the country's antitrust watchdog said it will cooperate with the consumer groups so that they can get compensation from the cartel organizers. The Herald says the FTC projected two months ago that the cartel participants illegally earned KRW6.7 trillion over the seven-year period. The Herald also reports that a separate class-action case is being prepared by a progressive civil group and 27 individuals against LPG companies accused of colluding to keep LPG prices unfairly high between 2003 and 2008, according to officials from legal and retail industries. The Herald says both cases are grabbing attention because they are the first two class-action lawsuits brought by consumer groups against cartel participants in Korea. However, experts raise concern whether the consumer groups can come out victors because Korean law currently recognizes only securities-related class- action lawsuits. L'OREAL USA: Accused of False Advertising and Unfair Competition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Salon FAD, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-05063 (S.D. N.Y. July 1, 2010), accuses the manufacturer of professional hair care products of false advertising and unfair competition, in violation of the Lanham Act. Salon FAD is a nonprofit organization formed in 2008 to advance the interests of salons in the face of the large-scale diversion of professional products into non-professional retail channels. FAD stands for "Fight Against Diversion" and Salon FAD is the assignee of Bobbi Sordelet's and Daily Trends Salon's interest in the case. L'Oreal produces and advertises professional products under several brands, including Matrix, Redken, Pureology, Kerastase, and L'Oreal Professional. Salon FAD explains that, despite labeling their products, and advertising and promoting their professional brands as available only in salons, L'Oreal and the other defendants sell their professional brands throughout the country in drug stores, grocery stores, and other mass merchandise retail stores. This, Salon FAD asserts, constitutes false advertising, is intentionally deceptive and misleading, and was undertaken by defendants to increase revenues and profits, at the expense of professional salons who, as a result of defendants' misrepresentations, suffered lost revenue, lost profits, lower business value, and lost goodwill and reputation. Salon FAD adds that despite their public statements opposing diversion, the defendants have done nothing to stop it. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James T. Southwick, Esq. Richard W. Hess, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 MAIN ROADS: Trilby Misso Prepares Suit to Clear Roads of Trees -------------------------------------------------------------- Louise O'Keeffe at The Toowoomba Chronicle in Australia reports that personal injury law firm Trilby Misso is forming a case against the Main Roads State Government department and looking for other people injured on the road. Despite a road upgrade to start later this year, Trilby Misso lawyer Michael Andersen, Esq., said Main Roads had shirked calls to upgrade the section where trees sit within the clearway zone and branches regularly fall on the road. "There are parts of the highway which have become very dangerous because the necessary upgrades of narrow, tree-lined sections haven't been undertaken," he said. "Local lobby groups successfully reduced the number of trees to be removed from 1400 to 486. "But we feel that Main Roads is ultimately responsible and have final say on the clearing for safety of motorists." Mr. Andersen said there had been more than 300 accidents on a 43km stretch of the highway between Toowoomba and Crows Nest over the past decade. He said people who had experienced similar accidents could also come forward and possibly a class action could take place. MOTRICITY INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Notice Sanction in Walker Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases Camellia Walker, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. Russell B. Morgan; Scott K. Haynes, Motricity, Inc., David F. Gross; Stephen A. Chiari; DLA Piper LLP (US), case no. 09-16532; and Camellia Walker, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. Motricity, Inc., David F. Gross; Stephen A. Chiari; DLA Piper LLP (US), case no. 09-16535 (9th Cir. July 2, 2010), Motricity and its counsel in the district court appeal a portion of the sanctions imposed in conjunction with the district court's order granting the motion of plaintiff Camellia Walker to remand Walker's putative class action to state court. The sanctions were imposed sua sponte without notice or hearing. The sanctions were imposed assertedly because Motricity removed the case for a second time without new evidence. The district court imposed monetary sanctions, as well as what the parties refer to as a "notice sanction," which provided: "Finally, in view of this repetitive and contemptuous conduct, the court orders that in all future cases where this defendant or these attorneys have removed or remove an action under CAFA defendant and/or counsel shall file a copy of this order with the court and serve it upon opposing counsel. Appellants took an appeal from the notice sanction. The Ninth Circuit held that the notice sanction portion of the district court's order remanding the case to state court is reversed. Each party will bear his, her, or its own costs on appeal. According to the Ninth Circuit, "it is long-established law in this circuit that a district court abuses its discretion when it imposes sanctions without first giving notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 1999) ('Whenever the district court imposes sanctions on an attorney, it must at a minimum, afford the attorney notice and an opportunity to be heard.'). Here, it is undisputed that such notice and an opportunity to be heard were not afforded to Appellants." A copy of the decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100702139 SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT: Tex. Sup. Ct. Allows Quixtar Suit to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In Quixtar Inc., v. Signature Management Team, LLC, D/B/A Team, case no. 09-0345 (Tex. Sup. Ct. July 2, 2010), the trial court dismissed a lawsuit filed in Collin County, Texas between two Michigan businesses based on common law forum non conveniens. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that the trial court abused its discretion. It agreed that the proposed forum, Michigan, was available and adequate for the lawsuit, but held that the defendant did not meet its burden to show that the private and public interest factors of the forum non conveniens analysis strongly weighed in favor of dismissal. The defendant appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment. Justice Nathan L. Hecht and Justice Debra Lehrmann did not participate in the decision. A copy of the decision is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=intxco20100702526 SK ENERGY: Kim & Kims Firm to Sue LPG Firms Over Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Cho Chung-un, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that a class- action case is being prepared by a progressive civil group and 27 individuals against LPG companies accused of colluding to keep LPG prices unfairly high between 2003 and 2008, according to officials from legal and retail industries. People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, an activists group, is to bring a lawsuit for damages against LPG cartel participants. The Fair Trade Commission found that six LPG suppliers -- E1, GS Caltex, Hyundai Oil Bank, S-Oil, SK Energy and SK Gas -- to have colluded to keep LPG prices high for six years between 2003 and 2008, and fined them a total of KRW668.9 billion. This was the largest fine ever levied by the watchdog, although the amount fell far short of the KRW1.3 trillion estimated earlier. Kim Tong-hyung at The Korea Times reports that the first class action suit against the gas companies will be filed by the end of the month, according to Kim & Kims, the law firm that is preparing it. The Korea Herald also reports that a group of cargo transport companies in Korea is to file a class-action lawsuit against 21 international carriers recently blamed for fixing the price of foreign freight services over the years. According to the Herald, both cases are grabbing attention because they are the first two class-action lawsuits brought by consumer groups against cartel participants in Korea. However, experts raise concern whether the consumer groups can come out victors because Korean law currently recognizes only securities-related class-action lawsuits. ********* 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 * * *