/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100715.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 15, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 138 Headlines 99 CENT: Sued in California for Increasing Prices to $1 AUDIOVOX CORP: Suits Over Cell Phone Radiation Remain Pending AFFILIATED COMPUTER: 2nd Cir. Allows Lawyer to Pursue Class Suit AIR FRANCE: Pays $87-Mil. to Settle US Cargo Class Suit AKEENA SOLAR: Calif. Ct. Says Hodges and Sabbag Suits Unrelated BABCOCK & WILCOX: Sued for Improper Disposal of Toxic Materials BIDZ.COM: State Ct. Dismisses Bahram Akhavan Derivative Suit CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: Judge Clears Epstein and Sheppard in Suit CANADIAN SOLAR: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Due August 2 CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit CEPHEID: Issues Recall of Xpert MRSA/SA BC Product CITIGROUP INC: NY Court Allows Bondholders' Suit Over CDOs DUPONT CO: Spelter Residents Won't Challenge Reduced Damages FACEBOOK INC: Suit Complains About Revised Privacy Settings IVANHOE HOUSE: Owners to Pay $82,500 to Settle Lawsuit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Tylenol, Other Kids' Medicine LANIER GOLF: Owners to Seek at Least $100K Legal Fees in Peck Case LOUISIANA: Education Board Sued for Unlawful Arrest of Kids LOUKAS DEVELOPMENT: Sued for Not Paying Interest on Security Dep. MASSACHUSETTS: Court Preliminary OKs Strip-Searched Case Accord MULTIBAND CORPORATION: Faces Overtime Lawsuit by Installers NEVADA CHEMICALS: Utah App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Braun Suit PALM INC: Ill. Suit Complains About Defective Smart Phone, PDAs PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Kendall Probes Hefner's Buyout Proposal POSTROCK ENERGY: Stipulation of Settlement Filed in Court TELESCOPE INC: 9th Cir. Denies Early Appeal in Lottery Suit TOMOTHERAPY INC: Accused in Wisc. Suit of Misleading Shareholders WELLS FARGO: District Judge Grills Bank's Trial Witnesses WYETH: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit in N.J. * News Agency Probe Says Georgians Pay $50-Mil. More for Hot Gas ********* 99 CENT: Sued in California for Increasing Prices to $1 ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that 99 Cent Only Stores raised its price per item to 99.99 cents in September 2008 -- in effect, to $1 -- hoodwinking its customers for millions of dollars a year, in Los Angeles Superior Court. AUDIOVOX CORP: Suits Over Cell Phone Radiation Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Certain consolidated class actions transferred to a Multi-District Litigation Panel of the U.S. District Court of the District of Maryland against Audiovox Corp. and other suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of hand-held wireless telephones are still pending. The suits generally allege damages relating to exposure to radio frequency radiation from hand-held wireless telephones. No additional information was disclosed in the company's July 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2010. Audiovox Corp. -- http://www.audiovox.com/-- is an international distributor and value added service provider in the accessory, mobile and consumer electronics industries. AFFILIATED COMPUTER: 2nd Cir. Allows Lawyer to Pursue Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Monday that a lawyer who sued a student loan company over hidden fees in loan agreements cannot be forced into arbitration and can pursue a class action. The circuit in Fensterstock v. Affiliated Computer Services, 09-1562-cv, said that the loan agreement's class action and class arbitration waiver clause was unconscionable and unenforceable. The decision by Judges Amalya L. Kearse, Jose A. Cabranes and Chester J. Straub clears the way for Joshua G. Fensterstock to be lead plaintiff in a putative class action against Affiliated Computer Services Inc., which serviced student loan notes for Education Finance Partners, a now-bankrupt California corporation. Mr. Fensterstock borrowed the principal amount of $52,915 at a fixed interest rate in 2006 to help pay for consolidated loans from his education at the Hofstra University School of Law. He graduated from Hofstra in 2003 and is now a solo practitioner in Manhattan. He sued claiming that Education Finance Partners and Affiliated Computer Services would apply payments that were not received by a certain day each month to interest instead of applying the payments to principal. He alleged that, if the misallocations continued, he would be "required to make an enormous lump-sum payment" at the end of the repayment period. The companies moved to enforce a clause in the loan agreement barring a class action and compelling arbitration on a case-by- case basis. But Southern District Judge Thomas P. Griesa denied the motions on March 24, 2009, applying California law in finding the clause unconscionable. Affiliated Computer Service appealed to the circuit, where oral arguments were heard in November. Judge Kearse, writing the panel's 32-page opinion, cited a California Civil Code provision stating that "All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud . . . are against the policy of the law." Judge Kearse said that "this principle is often a consideration in 'the justification of class action lawsuits,'" in the consumer fraud context, where the proof is common and it is impracticable for individual consumers to bring lawsuits because the expense is great and the recovery is small. At the circuit, Affiliated Computer Services argued that Mr. Fensterstock's argument that the clause was unconscionable was belied by the fact he was an attorney who specialized in complex financial transactions, and he did not allege he was surprised by the contract language. But Judge Kearse said that "where the clause is oppressive, procedural unconscionability may exist even in the absence of surprise." And Judge Kearse said that such a clause "presented to the weaker party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without the opportunity for meaningful negotiation is, under California law, oppressive, and hence satisfies the requirement that there be at least a minimal showing of procedural unconscionability." The judge said Mr. Fensterstock was just three years out of law school when he applied for the consolidated loan, and while his experience in the law might have made him aware of the class action and class arbitration waiver, "we have seen nothing in his education, experience, or expertise to suggest that he had any meaningful opportunity to negotiate that clause out of the contract." Judge Kearse said the clause met the standard for unconscionability because "it is a standard contract of adhesion drafted by a party that had superior bargaining power," the disputes on the allocation between interest and principal "predictably involve small amounts of damages," and Mr. Fentsterstock alleged the two companies were "deliberately carrying out a scheme to cheat large numbers of borrowers out of individually small amounts of money." Mr. Fensterstock is represented by: Orin Kurtz, Esq. ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 889-3700 Facsimile: (212) 684-5191 E-mail: okurtz@abbeyspanier.com Affiliated Computer is represented by: Edward K. Lenci, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 780 Third Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10017-2024 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 Facsimile: (212) 935-1166 Telex: 880248 E-mail: elenci@hinshawlaw.com AIR FRANCE: Pays $87-Mil. to Settle US Cargo Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Air France, KLM and Martinair have entered into an agreement to settle damage claims brought against them in the United States alleging violations of the antitrust laws in connection with air cargo shipping services. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval, the carriers will pay a total of $87 million in exchange for a release from all claims by direct purchasers of air cargo shipping services to and from the United States between 2000 and 2006. This amount will be deducted from the provision posted in 2008. The civil actions, which have been brought as class actions and consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, were initially filed in 2006 after the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission initiated investigations of the air cargo industry. In 2008, the three carriers entered into plea agreements in the United States to resolve that investigation. The investigation by the EU Commission remains pending. Agence France-Presse relates that the civil class action suits were filed in 2006 after the US and European Union authorities launched a probe into price rigging of the US cargo market. Four major airlines, including Air France-KLM and Cathay Pacific Airways, had to pay US fines worth $504 million when they were found guilty in 2008 of conspiring to fix air cargo prices, officials said Thursday. Air France-KLM paid the largest amount, $350 million, to settle this criminal case, leaving the civil plaintiffs in the United States to pursue their claims. European Indirect Purchaser Victims Get Nothing Hausfeld & Co LLP and Claims Funding International plc both express dismay at Air France-KLM compensating freight forwarders for the effects of the air cargo cartel while offering their European indirect shipper victims nothing. Class Counsel in the United States, including international claimant law firm Hausfeld LLP, has announced an air cargo price- fixing settlement agreement with Societe Air France, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., and Martinair Holland N.V. The airlines have agreed to pay an $87 million settlement to a class of direct purchasers of airfreight services in respect of liability under United States law for their acknowledged part in an air cargo cartel that breached competition laws around the world but have refused to offer their European indirect purchaser victims any compensation. Airlines have already admitted to conspiring with competitors in order to fix fuel surcharges for air freight shipping services. The claims arise out of a global cartel in international air freight services which is believed to have occurred between January 2000 and late 2006. Both Air France-KLM and Martinair have pleaded guilty to price fixing to regulatory authorities in the US, Australia and Canada and were recently fined by the regulatory authority in South Korea. Substantial fines have been paid by both airlines and a Martinair executive, Frank de Jong, has been sentenced to serve 8 months in prison. Under the US settlement, Air France-KLM has agreed to pay money exclusively to direct purchasers (such as freight forwarders) but has refused to compensate the many indirect purchasers of air freight services, including those in Europe, who have also suffered losses as a result of the cartel. Indirect purchasers are specifically excluded from the definition of those who will be giving up their claims. This allows shippers to whom Air France- KLM have denied compensation to pursue their claims and recover the full amount of their damages in other jurisdictions around the world. Commenting on the settlement, Michael Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP, one of the co-lead counsel in the US case and who has been appointed the co-lead counsel principally responsible for foreign law claims, said: "This is an important settlement and a major step forward for Air France and KLM toward paying damages for their admitted price- fixing conduct. We now look forward to seeking appropriate redress for the indirect shippers who also suffered substantial unlawful overcharges as a result of the cartel." CFI has signed a large group of European claimants who spent more than EUR3.35 billion on international air freight during the cartel period. CFI's Managing Director Peter Koutsoukis, said: "It is regrettable that one of Europe's great airlines would decide to pay damages to their US customers but offer nothing to European based customers. European cartel victims have remained silent for too long but now they are standing up in large numbers and demanding their right to redress" Volvo Car Corporation, represented globally by Hausfeld with respect to the airfreight matter, commented through its senior litigation counsel, Lars Bertler: "As a major shipper of cargo on the airlines comprising this price-fixing cartel, VCC is pleased to be compensated by Air France for the economic damages we suffered for our US-related direct purchases. Yet we are disappointed that this global cartel member fails to compensate us for any of the shipments we made through an intermediary or for any of our non-US-related damages. So along with hundreds of other uncompensated victims in Europe and around the world, we intend to pursue our claims for all damages caused by the airfreight cartel." Erik Larson at Bloomberg News reports that EU spokeswoman Amelia Torres said in an e-mail, "As Air France said in its written statement, the investigation is still going on in Europe." She declined to comment further. The settlement follows on from an $85 million price-fixing settlement secured in 2006 by US Class Counsel with German flag carrier Lufthansa on behalf of purchasers of air freight shipping services to, from and within the US. In this settlement Lufthansa did offer compensation to indirect purchasers of air freight. Between them Hausfeld and CFI separately represent some $5 billion to $6 billion of combined air cargo traffic purchased by shippers in the cartel period located on multiple continents, including several among the Fortune Global 500 and Forbes Global 2000, as well as both the Business Week and Interbrand 100 Best Global Brand. These companies have claims for compensation in Europe resulting from the loss they suffered as a result of the actions of the cartel. Hausfeld & CFI have signed a formal co-operation agreement to coordinate the pursuit of claims for shippers within the EU. Accordingly, Hausfeld and CFI have written a demand letter to Air France-KLM demanding compensation for European victims of the cartel and CFI are set to institute proceedings in the Netherlands against Air France-KLM imminently. According to Bart Koster at Dow Jones Newswires, Claims Funding International intends to file a claim for at least EUR335 million against Air France-KLM for alleged cargo price-fixing violations, the company's managing director Peter Koutsoukis told Dow Jones Tuesday. "We sent a letter of demand to Air France-KLM Monday and asked them to respond within 14 days. If they do not respond in a satisfying way, we will go to court," Mr. Koutsoukis said. Dow Jones further reports that the letter was sent on the same day that Air France-KLM announced the $87 million settlement to end the U.S. class action. Dow Jones reports that Mr. Koutsoukis said, "The amount of EUR335 million is 10% of the total amount of EUR3.35 billion my clients have paid to the cartel airlines in the 2000-2006 period for their shipments as we believe the illegal overcharge was at least 10% and we shall also be claiming interest." British Airways plc already faces an action brought by flower importers and a growing group of other shippers in the English High Court by Hausfeld & Co LLP. Other shipper actions are pending in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea. The European Commission has still not delivered a decision on the cartel despite having investigated it since December 2007. More information on the case are available at: http://www.aircargoclaims.eu/ http://www.claimsfunding.eu/ Hausfeld & Co LLP, led by industry doyen Michael Hausfeld, Esq., is widely recognized as one of the leading and best-known claimant law firms in the world. It is at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses around the world. The partners of Hausfeld LLP have obtained numerous landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses, and have been champions for the private enforcement of competition and antitrust laws globally for almost four decades. To contact Hausfeld: HAUSFELD & CO. LLP 12 Gough Square London EC4A 3DW United Kingdom E-mail: jcorden@hausfeldllp.com Claims Funding International plc is a litigation funder specializing in multi party claims for the victims of corporate wrongdoing. It pays all the costs and assumes all the risk of the litigation in return for a commission, only if successful. To contact Claims Funding International: Peter Koutsoukis Claims Funding International plc Telephone: +353872769443 mob +35312374634 dir E-mail: pkoutsoukis@claimsfunding.eu AKEENA SOLAR: Calif. Ct. Says Hodges and Sabbag Suits Unrelated --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs seek determination from the United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division, as to whether Evelyn Sabbag, et al. v. Barry Cinnamon, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02735, should be related to Sharon Hodges, et al. v. Akeena Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-02147. Plaintiffs contend that both cases concern substantially the same parties, transaction, and events. To date, Defendants have not filed any opposition. On July 9, 2010, District Judge James Ware held that the cases are not related within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12(a). Although the two actions concern substantially the same transaction and events, the legal claims, named defendants, and procedural posture are different. The First Action is a securities class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws while the Second Action is a shareholder derivative suit alleging a breach of fiduciary duty as well as other state law claims. The First Action names Akeena Solar, Inc., Barry Cinnamon, and Gary Effren as Defendants, while Akeena Solar is a nominal Plaintiff in the Second Action, with Cinnamon, Effren, Edward Roffman, Jon Witkin, George Lauor, and David Wallace named as Defendants. Finally, the First Action is further along procedurally, since it has already survived a Motion to Dismiss and is moving toward class certification. The Second Action was only recently filed on June 22, 2010. In light of the differences in legal claims, defendants, and procedural posture of the two actions, the Court found that there is no risk of "an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges." BABCOCK & WILCOX: Sued for Improper Disposal of Toxic Materials --------------------------------------------------------------- Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that leaks from two nuclear processing plants poisoned dozens of people in the Kiskiminetas Valley and killed 10 of them. More than 35 named plaintiffs claim that Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, B&W Technical Services and Atlantic Richfield Co. "sought to prevent details about their operations from reaching workers, [the class] or surrounding community" though the defendants were "aware of the fact that they were releasing toxic and radioactive materials into the air, water and soil." The plants at issue are in the Borough of Apollo and Parks Township. The class claims the plants' operators "opted not to take sufficient remedial measures to eliminate or abate emissions and releases." This led to a "casual attitude towards environmental and health safety, even though they were aware of the health risks posed to by such releases," according to the 53-page complaint. Because the operators withheld information about dangers and "took steps to prevent public regulatory agencies from disclosing non- trade secret documents to the public," the class claims they were "deprived of information crucial to their ability to limit their exposure or take other appropriate action." The 39 named plaintiffs joined more than 20 others who filed three other lawsuits against the nuclear plant operators in April and May this year. Members of the class claim to have "inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed [toxic] substances" that caused them to suffer from cancers of the lung, skin, esophagus, breast, bladder, colon, skin, prostate, nose, kidney, liver, uterus, mouth, bone and stomach. They also say the emissions caused adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma and non- Hodgkin lymphoma. The class claims the emissions caused at least 10 deaths, including that of Michael McComb, who died of melanoma after swimming in the Kiski River downstream from the facilities. The class claims the wrongful discharge of radioactive and toxic materials into public water, emission of radioactive and toxic materials from facility stacks, exposure of workers, who could then spread contamination outside the worksite, and improper disposal of materials which leaked from storage tanks and disposal systems all contributed to their exposure. They claims that the facilities "never, in their entire history, operated in compliance with applicable state, local and federal laws," and that the plant operators knew it. They claim the plants "routinely exceed(ed) federal stack emission regulations," violated Pennsylvania laws on waste disposal of, failed to maintain equipment in proper working order, failed to monitor its systems and exposed workers to "unlawful and hazardous concentrations of radioactive and toxic materials." The class claims their properties also have been damaged by the "hazardous [and] radioactive waters released from facilities." Both nuclear plants were developed in the 1950s by Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp., about 40 miles northeast of Pittsburgh. The facilities were the first privately owned commercial nuclear processing plants, and used to be the largest privately owned processor of nuclear materials, including plutonium, uranium, strontium, cesium, and thorium, according to the complaint. The class claims that the Apollo facility, which produced fissionable materials to be used as nuclear fuel, is by the Kiskiminetas River and within a 1,000-foot radius of residents, with some resident homes only 50 feet away. The complaint states that processing activities ended in 1984, but the site is still used for evaluations and remedial work. The nuclear facility in Parks Township, which was once the "largest non-governmental plutonium development and fabrication operation in the U.S." and was used to dispose of radioactive waste through the mid to late 1990's, is also close to Kiskiminetas River, immediately north of the community of Kiskimere. Both plaints manufactured and processed materials for nuclear fuel, and processed, stored and produced uranium, enriched uranium, plutonium and other radioactive materials and other non- radioactive chemicals, "many of which are classified as hazardous," to be used by both commercial and government customers. In 1967 plant operations were taken over by Atlantic Richfield , which is still an active participant in remediation and decommissioning activities, according to the complaint. Operations were passed on in 1971 to Babcock & Wilcox and B&W Technical Services, the current licensees and directors of operations. The class seeks damages for violations of the Price Anderson Act, negligence, liability, private nuisance, trespass, misrepresentation and concealment, civil conspiracy, and wrongful death. A copy of the Complaint in Altmire, et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00908 (W.D. Pa.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/12/NukeLeak.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce E. Mattock, Esq. David B. Rodes, Esq. Jason T. Shipp, Esq. GOLDBERG, PERSKY & WHITE, P.C. 1030 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-471-3980 - and - Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Jonathan D. Orent, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLC 321 South Main St. Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: 401-457-7723 BIDZ.COM: State Ct. Dismisses Bahram Akhavan Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Bidz.com announced that the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, dismissed Bahram Akhavan v. Bidz.com, Inc. et al., the first of two shareholder derivative cases filed against the Company's Board of Directors. "We are very pleased with the dismissal of yet another lawsuit, which will allow us to continue to move forward and focus on our operations," said David Zinberg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "The dismissal of this complaint validates the position we have long maintained -- that these claims were without merit and that Bidz has acted in the best interests of its shareholders." The most recent dismissal follows the February 2010 dismissal of a consumer class action complaint against the Company alleging that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, including "shill bidding." Motions to Dismiss Pending Federal Securities Fraud and Federal Derivative Case The Federal Securities Fraud Class Action In May and June, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in three parallel class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-3216 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009); James Mitchell v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 22, 2009); Mark Walczyk v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on June 3, 2009)). On July 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the cases. The consolidated complaint charges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company failed to disclose unethical and fraudulent business practices, that it did not have controls in place to prevent "shill bidding," that it uses unreliable or false appraisal prices on its merchandise, and that it failed to correctly account for and disclose in detail its co-op marketing contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees. On May 25, 2010, in a 30-page opinion, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall of the United States District Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the securities fraud complaint with leave to amend. On June 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed its amended complaint. The Company will file a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint this month and anticipates that the Court will hear the motion in September, 2010. The Federal and State Derivative Cases In May and July, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers and its Board of Directors were named as defendants in two shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and the United States District Court for the Central District of California, respectively (Bahram Akhavan v. Bidz.com, Inc. et al. BC414198 (filed May 20, 2009) (the "State Derivative Action") and Farris Hassan v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-04984 (CBM) (C.D. Cal. (filed July 10, 2009) (the "Federal Derivative Action")). The State and Federal Derivative actions allege violations of law, including breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of California Corporations Code. Amended complaints in both actions also include allegations relating to the Company's co-op marketing contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees. On April 27, 2010, the United States District Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Federal Derivative Action with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and, later this month, the Company will file another Motion to Dismiss, which the Company anticipates will be heard by the Court in November 2010. On February 26, 2010, the Superior Court of California granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the State Derivative Action with leave to amend. In response, on April 9, 2010, Mr. Akhavan, the plaintiff in the State Derivative Action, made a demand to inspect certain books and records of the Company, which the Company rejected on the grounds, among other reasons, that the request lacked a proper purpose under Delaware law. On May 5, 2010, Mr. Akhavan filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel the Company to permit inspection of the requested documents. In June 2010, after the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Delaware action, Mr. Akhavan withdrew both the State Court Derivative Action, as well as the Delaware action, resulting in the dismissal of both cases. Please see the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, for a description of other legal proceeding involving the Company. Bidz.com (Nasdaq:BIDZ) -- http://www.bidz.com/-- founded in 1998, is a leading online retailer of jewelry. Bidz offers its products through a live auction format as well as a fixed price online retail store, Buyz.com. Bidz.com's auctions are also available in Arabic, German and Spanish. Bidz also operates Modnique -- http://www.modnique.com/-- a division of Bidz.com, an exclusive private sale shopping site for members-only, offering authentic premium brand name merchandise. Modnique offers its members exclusive access to 24-72 hour sales events on designer apparel, accessories, shoes, and houseware and much more at price points up to 85% below traditional retail prices. CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: Judge Clears Epstein and Sheppard in Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Jeffrey, writing for The National Law Journal, relates a federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday threw out a lawsuit against Epstein Becker & Green and Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton that alleged they had been improperly paid for representing a credit repair organization in a multimillion-dollar class action. Epstein Becker and later, Sheppard Mullin, represented Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp., which faced a class action that accused the credit counseling company of holding itself out as a non- profit organization while its owners raked in millions. That class action was ultimately settled for $259 million. In November, the class and its name plaintiffs, Andrew and Kelly Zimmerman, filed suit against the two firms and several of the firms' former lawyers. That suit argued that because Epstein Becker and Sheppard Mullin were paid out of a trust set up for the members of the class, the firms should have to pay those fees back. The suit also alleged that Epstein Becker and one of its former partners, Paul Kaplan, Esq., violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act by advising Cambridge in "in making statements in their advertising promising credit repair." The November complaint alleges that Epstein Becker received $6.9 million while representing Cambridge. The complaint also alleges that Sheppard Mullin received $1.1 million for its work on behalf of Cambridge after Epstein Becker withdrew from the underlying case. In a decision handed down July 8, Judge Michael Ponsor granted summary judgment in favor of Epstein Becker and Sheppard Mullin. Judge Ponsor's 13-page order says that because the class had only been certified in the underlying case and not in the new lawsuit, it had violated Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "[The plaintiffs] argue that the class certification proceedings of the separate, prior [Cambridge] Action, involving entirely different defendants, were sufficient to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements for this subsequent proceeding. No authority supports this disturbing notion," Judge Ponsor writes in the opinion. "Plaintiffs cite no precedent, and this court is aware of none, holding that the certification in one proceeding may migrate to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements in a different proceeding against different defendants." Neil Dilloff, Esq., a DLA Piper partner representing Epstein Becker, said he was pleased with Judge Ponsor's decision to grant the motion to dismiss in the case. But he added that he "wouldn't be surprised" if the Zimmermans appealed Judge Ponsor's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on behalf of the class. Sheppard Mullin represented itself in the case. Kaplan, Esq., who is now a partner in Arent Fox's New York office, hired Jonathan Lerner, Esq., Kurt Hemr, Esq., and Maura Barry Grinalds, Esq., all partners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, to represent him. The other defendants in the suit were represented by Mark Goidell, Esq., a Garden City, New York-based solo practitioner. The plaintiffs were represented by lawyers from Los Angeles-based Morris, Polich & Purdy; Charlottesville, Va.-based Michie Hamlett, Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel; and New York-based Whalen & Tusa. CANADIAN SOLAR: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Due August 2 --------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP said all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Canadian Solar, Inc. (Nasdaq:CSIQ) between May 26, 2009 and June 1, 2010, inclusive, have 21 days until the August 2, 2010, deadline to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit. The case filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Janbay v. Canadian Solar, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-4430-RWS, has been assigned to the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com , or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com/ The Complaint charges Canadian Solar and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Canadian Solar is a vertically-integrated manufacturer of silicon, ingots, wafers, cells, solar modules (panels) and custom-designed solar power applications, which delivers solar power products to customers worldwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Canadian Solar's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that with respect to sales to certain customers, it was uncertain whether the Company would receive full cash payments; (2) that certain goods were subsequently returned after the quarter end; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial results were overstated during the Class Period; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. CARMAX INC: Units Continue to Face Claims in Consolidated Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. continue to face the remaining claims in a consolidated lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class. On April 2, 2008, John Fowler filed a putative class-action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, "Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC," and "Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC," were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involve: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and (5) unfair competition. The putative class consists of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The plaintiffs have indicated that they will appeal the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. In addition to the plaintiffs' overtime claim, the claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition. On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving related legal issues. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. No further updates were reported in CarMax, Inc.'s July 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2010. CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries. The company is a retailer of used cars. CEPHEID: Issues Recall of Xpert MRSA/SA BC Product -------------------------------------------------- Cepheid is initiating a recall of all lots of Xpert(R) MRSA/SA BC (blood culture) product. The recall is a corrective action, which does not require return of product to the manufacturer. Customers may continue to use the product; however, when a MRSA negative/SA positive result is obtained, the result should be interpreted as "MRSA indeterminate/SA positive, antimicrobial susceptibility testing pending." Further testing should be performed using a FDA-cleared, phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing method on isolated colonies recovered from the blood culture bottle, as instructed in the Corrective Action Notice dated July 1, 2010. MRSA positive/SA positive results can still be reported as such. The new instructions will be incorporated in the product labeling. The Xpert MRSA/SA BC product produces false-negative MRSA results, which could potentially contribute to incorrect treatment of an MRSA infection. Hospitals or laboratories that have purchased the Xpert MRSA/SA BC product subject to this corrective action, may continue to use all product within their inventory subject to the new instructions stated in the Corrective Action Notice as of July 1, 2010. Customers should contact Cepheid Technical Support at 888-838-3222 if they have questions regarding this corrective action. This corrective action is a Class I recall, which includes these product catalog numbers: Xpert MRSA/SA BC (GXMRSA/SA-BC-10) Xpert MRSA/SA BC CE-IVD (GXMRSA/SA-BC-CE-10) Cepheid voluntarily issued this corrective action after learning of rare, false-negative MRSA results from the testing of blood culture samples. The FDA has been apprised of this action. Although the product appears to continue to meet performance claims as outlined in the current product labeling, an ongoing failure investigation has identified the emergence of novel MRSA strain types as one of the causes of false-negative MRSA results. The failure investigation has not fully determined the remaining causes of the false-negative MRSA results. To date, one adverse event has been reported to the FDA through the MDR process. The Xpert MRSA/SA BC product was distributed to hospital laboratories worldwide. For US customers it can be identified by Cepheid labeling: Xpert MRSA/SA BC, Catalog Number GXMRSA/SA-BC- 10. For European customers, the product can be identified by GXMRSA/SA-BC-CE-10. Customers with questions may contact the company at 888-838-3222. Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product, and/or quality problems should also be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at 1-800-FDA- 0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 9787, or on the MedWatch Web site at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch CONTACTS: For Customer Inquiries: Rick Fletcher Vice President, Regulatory Communications Compliance & Quality Systems Telephone: (408) 542-8566 E-mail: rick.fletcher@cepheid.com For Investor Inquiries: Jacquie Ross Cepheid Investor Relations Telephone: (408) 400-8329 E-mail: investor.relations@cepheid.com For Media Inquiries: Jared Tipton Cepheid Corporate Telephone: (408) 400-8377 E-mail: jared.tipton@cepheid.com CITIGROUP INC: NY Court Allows Bondholders' Suit Over CDOs ---------------------------------------------------------- Dow Jones Newswires' Chad Bray reports that U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein in Manhattan on Monday allowed a consolidated lawsuit by bondholders to proceed against Citigroup Inc. Dow Jones says the bondholders claim Citigroup failed to disclose its exposure to $66 billion worth of collateralized debt obligations backed by subprime mortgages, as well as other "toxic" mortgage-backed assets. The bondholders purchased Citigroup bonds in a series of offerings between May 2006 and August 2008, in which the bank raised more than $71 billion. The bank's bonds plummeted in value when the bank's true exposure was disclosed in November 2008, the bondholders claim. Reuters reports that the plaintiffs include pension funds in Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, including the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority rail system, as well as New Jersey-based American European Insurance Co. Reuters says 28 current and former Citigroup officers and directors are among the defendants, including Pandit and his predecessor, Charles Prince, and former senior adviser Robert Rubin. Reuters says nearly 80 co-underwriters on the bond offerings, including Bank of America Corp, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, were also named as defendants, though 61 have been dismissed from the case. Dow Jones relates Judge Stein: -- held that the bondholders had standing to bring some of their claims regarding the bank's CDO exposure, saying in part that 48 bond offerings by the bank during that period used the same three registration statements; and -- dismissed some claims related to the company's statements regarding its exposure to $100 billion in structured investment vehicles backed by subprime mortgages and $11 billion in auction-rate securities, which bondholders claim were illiquid. "We are pleased that some claims were dismissed, and will vigorously defend the remaining claims on the merits," a Citigroup spokeswoman said in a statement, according to Dow Jones. The case is In re: Citigroup Inc Bond Litigation, case no. 08-9522 (S.D.N.Y). The bondholders are represented by: Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, Pennsylvania Telephone: (610) 667-7706 (610) 822-2229 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: azivitz@btkmc.com Based in New York, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) -- is a global diversified financial services holding company whose businesses provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. Citigroup has roughly 200 million customer accounts and does business in more than 140 countries. Citigroup's businesses are aligned in three reporting segments: (i) Citicorp, which consists of Regional Consumer Banking (in North America, EMEA, Asia, and Latin America) and the Institutional Clients Group (Securities and Banking, including the Private Bank, and Transaction Services); (ii) Citi Holdings, which consists of Brokerage and Asset Management, Local Consumer Lending, and a Special Asset Pool; and (iii) Corporate/Other. As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on November 25, 2008, the U.S. government entered into an agreement with Citigroup to provide a package of guarantees, liquidity access, and capital. The U.S. Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation agreed to provide protection against the possibility of unusually large losses on an asset pool of roughly $306 billion of loans and securities backed by residential and commercial real estate and other such assets, which will remain on Citigroup's balance sheet. As a fee for this arrangement, Citigroup issued preferred shares to the Treasury and FDIC. The Federal Reserve agreed to backstop residual risk in the asset pool through a non-recourse loan. Citigroup, the third-biggest U.S. bank, received $45 billion in bailout aid. Other bailed-out banks, including Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., have pledged to repay TARP money. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, repaid TARP funds in June. Citigroup is selling assets to repay the bailout funds. Citigroup is one of the banks that, according to results of the government's stress test, need more capital. DUPONT CO: Spelter Residents Won't Challenge Reduced Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Spelter, W.Va. residents who won a class-action lawsuit against DuPont over long-term exposure to toxins won't fight a court ruling that reduced punitive damages awarded in the case. The lawsuit alleged that a former zinc plant in Spelter contaminated surrounding air, soil and water. In March, the West Virginia Supreme Court reduced the $196 million punitive damages award to about $117.7 million. Another $20 million was cut to credit Delaware-based DuPont for cleanup costs. Lawyers for the residents said in a recent filing in Harrison County Circuit Court that they would accept the reduced punitive damages award. The state Supreme Court decided in March to send the case back to Harrison County Circuit Judge Thomas A. Bedell for a trial on whether the underlying claims were filed in time to permit the remaining damages. Judge Bedell has yet to set a trial date. DuPont had been involved with the property since 1899, when it bought the land for a gunpowder mill, and had operated the plant until selling it in 1950. It then took it over when then-owner T.L. Diamond closed it in 2001. The smelter produced more than 4.4 billion pounds of zinc over 90 years, while churning out such toxins as arsenic, cadmium and lead in the process. In 2007, a jury concluded that DuPont was liable for damages and that it had engaged in "wanton, willful, or reckless conduct." FACEBOOK INC: Suit Complains About Revised Privacy Settings ----------------------------------------------------------- Nickeesha Swaby at Courthouse News Service reports that concerns about Facebook's revised privacy settings has spread to Canada, in a class action in Quebec Superior Court. The class claims that Facebook subscribers own the information posted on their pages, and that Facebook "without proper communication" changed its terms of service to reveal its customers' private information -- even those who deleted their accounts. "The petitioner, as with other users, is the owner of all the content and information posted on his Facebook.com account and said content and information cannot lawfully be appropriated by the respondent without the proper and informed consent of the petitioner and other users. Facebook converts and misappropriates said content and information for its benefit and gain," says lead plaintiff Patrice St.-Arnaud. Beginning in 2009, Facebook made its customers' names, photos, friends, favorite Internet pages, favorite products and people, their genders, and other information publicly available, according to the complaint. The class claims Facebook made money from its customers personal data by letting third parties us it for targeted advertising campaigns. "The data collected from its users is the key commercial asset Facebook employs to sell advertising and drive traffic to the Facebook.com website," the complaint states. The class claims that Facebook should not be allowed to reap the economic benefits of its "unlawful conduct" without giving its customers a slice of the pie. It is estimated that 48% of Canadians have a Facebook account. Similar class action lawsuits against Facebook have been filed in Toronto and Winnipeg. A copy of the Complaint in St-Arnaud v. Facebook Inc., Case No. 06-000511-101 (Quebec Super. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/12/FacebookCanada.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: MERCHANT LAW GROUP, LLC 10 Notre-Dame E., Suite 200 Montreal, Quebec H2Y 1B7 Telephone: 514-842-7776 IVANHOE HOUSE: Owners to Pay $82,500 to Settle Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ The owners and operators of Ivanhoe House Apartments, an apartment complex in Ann Arbor, Mich., have agreed to pay $82,500 to settle a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department alleging that they had discriminated against African-American home-seekers, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The Justice Department's lawsuit, which was handled jointly by attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, was filed in March 2010. The lawsuit was based upon evidence generated by a series of fair housing tests conducted by the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan, a private non-profit organization located in Ann Arbor. In the tests, individuals posed as prospective renters for purposes of determining whether the defendants were providing equal treatment to similarly situated home seekers in compliance with the Fair Housing Act. As alleged in the complaint, the testing revealed that Ivanhoe House Apartments repeatedly and consistently treated African- American apartment-seekers less favorably than white apartment- seekers. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Ivanhoe House Apartments denied the availability of apartments to African- Americans, failed to show them available apartments, and/or quoted them later dates of availability than they quoted to white persons. A separate federal lawsuit was filed by the Fair Housing Center. The settlement resolves both lawsuits. "Racial discrimination in housing harms not only those who were denied housing, but also the communities in which they live," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. "[The] settlement is a clear signal of our commitment to vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act and to fight illegal discrimination in housing." "Unfortunately, racial discrimination in housing persists in Michigan and elsewhere," said Barbara L. McQuade, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. "We will continue to protect the rights of all persons in this District to obtain the housing of their choice free from unlawful discrimination." Under the settlement, which must still be approved by U.S. District Court Judge Sean F. Cox, the defendants will pay $35,000 in damages to three victims who the United States contends were discriminated against because of their race at Ivanhoe House Apartments; pay $7,500 in a civil penalty to the United States; and pay $40,000 to the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan as damages for the non-profit's efforts in testing and investigating the apartment complex. The settlement also requires the defendants and their employees to undergo fair housing training, conduct self-testing of the apartment complex, and provide periodic reports to the Justice Department and the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/ Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of housing discrimination can call the Housing Discrimination Tip Line at 1-800-896-7743, e-mail the Justice Department at fairhousing@usdoj.gov or contact HUD at 1-800-669-9777. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Tylenol, Other Kids' Medicine ---------------------------------------------------------------- AboutLawsuits.com reports that Johnson & Johnson faces a class- action lawsuit over recalled children's medication, which was filed on behalf of consumers who say that the company botched attempts at compensating customers who paid for the defective drugs. Five children's medication lawsuits were filed by six different consumers last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Illinois. The lawsuits accuse Johnson & Johnson of fraud and racketeering, saying that the company failed to recall the drugs properly and did not do enough to allow consumers to recover losses. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for the Johnson & Johnson lawsuits. The initial McNeil Healthcare children's medication recall on April 30 affected 40 different liquid medication products, including Tylenol, Benadryl, Motrin and Zyrtec. McNeil is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The recall affected 136 million bottles of children's medications, and resulted in the shutdown of the company's Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania, plant, and the suspension of the production of all of McNeil's children medications. Following that recall, the FDA has received nearly 800 complaints, including at least seven reports of deaths associated with the medication. However, the FDA says its investigations so far have not directly linked any of the recalled products to any of the deaths. According to the complaints, Johnson & Johnson only provided coupons to consumers who purchased recalled drugs. However, since the company has, at least temporarily, discontinued the recalled products, the coupons are discounts on drugs that currently do not exist. In addition, the lawsuits note that by handing out the coupons, Johnson & Johnson assumes consumers would want to purchase their products again at some point in the future, which may not be the case. The lawsuits also quote allegations by U.S. lawmakers that the company has conducted "phantom recalls" of bad products, by having contractors remove potentially defective products from store shelves without notifying the FDA or consumers that there was a problem. This charge was leveled against the company at a recent hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Edolphus Towns. Some lawmakers, who have started a congressional investigation into Johnson & Johnson's drug manufacturing activities, are now pushing for expanded FDA power to force drug recalls to help the agency quickly deal with future drug contamination problems. LANIER GOLF: Owners to Seek at Least $100K Legal Fees in Peck Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ As reported in the July 13th edition of the Class Action Reporter, the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that the lawsuit Michael D. Peck filed lawsuit on behalf of himself and all homeowners with lots adjacent to the Lanier Golf Club, Inc., cannot proceed as a class action against the golf course. Julie Arrington at Forsyth County News reports that the golf course's owners, Jack Manton and George Bagley Jr., said they plan to seek attorneys and litigation fees from Mr. Peck in an amount exceeding $100,000. Messrs. Manton and Bagley said in a statement Friday that they were pleased with the timeliness of the Appellate Court's decision in Mr. Peck's case, which they called "a vindictive, frivolous lawsuit based upon no relevant facts or applicable law to support its claims." "Lanier Golf Club has no choice but to vigorously defend our constitutional property rights and aggressively respond to individuals or groups that frivolously file suits with no legal basis," the statement said. Forsyth County News also reports that Mr. Peck's attorney, Bob McFarland Sr., Esq., said he thinks the case will go back before Cherokee County Superior Court Judge Frank Mills, the trial court judge who in 2009 dismissed the case. "In all this two and a half years of fooling around we haven't ever gotten to the main issue," Forsyth County News quotes Mr. McFarland as saying. "So it appears to me that we're going to be in a position to get to the main issue, but only as to one plaintiff, Michael Peck." Mr. McFarland, Forsyth County News relates, explained that the "main issue" in the case is whether there is an implied easement to the golf course. Mr. McFarland said there are options with the Peck case, including a request for review by the Georgia Supreme Court, and that no decisions have been made on what happens next other than it can proceed to final judgment. LOUISIANA: Education Board Sued for Unlawful Arrest of Kids ----------------------------------------------------------- Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that an elementary school's "brutal and unconstitutional policy" of "intrusive arrests and seizures" of little kids left a first-grader terrified of school, afraid that "grown-ups with guns may hurt him again," the black child's parents say in a federal class action. The parents say their first-grade son, and other kids, "are unlawfully seized, arrested, handcuffed, shackled, and chained to furniture for very minor violations of school rules." Suing on behalf of his son, J.W., Sebastian Weston claims the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education allowed the Recovery School District and its administrators and officers to enforce the "brutal" and unreasonable policies. Defendants include Sarah T. Reed Elementary School Principal Daphyne [sic] Burnett, School Police Officer Willis, and Superintendent Paul Vallas. Mr. Weston says his son was handcuffed and shackled to a chair at Reed Elementary in New Orleans on May 4, after he failed to follow his teacher's directions. Two days later, J.W. was handcuffed and shackled by another security officer, identified as defendant Willis, after arguing with another student in the cafeteria, the dad says. Mr. Weston said the experience has transformed the formerly "outgoing 6-year-old to a fearful and withdrawn child who has difficulty sleeping through the night." As a result of the trauma, J.W. "is currently under the care of a mental health professional and now lives with ongoing trauma and severe emotional distress." Mr. Weston seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, and punitive damages for unlawful arrest, unreasonable and intrusive seizure, violation of the Fourth Amendment, assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment. After the lawsuit was filed, Recovery School District spokesman Ken Jones said in a statement that the district investigated, and concluded that it "was an isolated incident." "The student was not arrested and the employee involved was terminated," the district told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Mr. Jones did not identify which security officer was fired or provide any other additional details, saying the district does not comment on pending litigation. A copy of the Complaint in J.W. v. Vallas, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01925 (E.D. La.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/12/LaSutdents.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Thena K. Robinson, Esq. Sheila A. Bedi, Esq. Poonam Juneja, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 4431 Canal St. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 E-mail: trobinson@splcenter.org sbedi@splcenter.org pjuneja@splcenter.org - and - Carol Kolinchak, Esq. JUVENILE JUSTICE PROJECT OF LOUISIANA 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 522-5437 E-mail: ckolinchak@jjpl.org LOUKAS DEVELOPMENT: Sued for Not Paying Interest on Security Dep. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Monk, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Loukas Development, Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-29420 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 9, 2010), asserts claims for violations of the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 12, et seq. ("CRLTO"). Ms. Monk says Loukas violated the CRLTO by: (a) failing to attach the City-mandated CRLTO security deposit interest rate disclosures that included the current year's interest rate to written lease agreements when initially offered to tenants or prospective tenants, (b) failing to pay tenants interest on their security deposits within 30 days after the end of each tenant's 12 month rental period and (c) subjecting tenants' security deposits to the claims of creditors and/or otherwise not holding tenants' security deposits as the property of the tenant making the deposit. Loukas Development is the owner of the apartment leased to Plaintiff and at least 17 other residential dwelling units in Chicago. Ms. Monk states that she paid a $25 application fee and a $850 security deposit with a single bank check in the amount of $875 when she submitted her rental application. Ms. Monk relates that she vacated her dwelling unit on April 30, 2010, the expiry date of her lease, but that Loukas returned her security deposit only after 30 days from said date, without paying any interest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Sobek, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY S. SOBEK, P.C. 10 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 756-1330 - and - Zachary Martel, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ZACHARY MARTEL 754 Genesee Dr. Naperville, IL 60563 MASSACHUSETTS: Court Preliminary OKs Strip-Searched Case Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- George Graham at The Republican reports that a federal judge has given preliminary approval to a $1.1 million settlement in a civil suit against Franklin County Jail in Massachusetts on behalf of 486 arrestees who were strip-searched there without cause. The state has agreed to pay $1,162,468 to settle the class action suit. Each participating class member will receive an equal share of the settlement, up to a cap of $3,500. "I find that it is fair and reasonable," District Court Magistrate Judge Kenneth Neiman said. In October, Judge Neiman had ruled that the strip-searches were unconstitutional. The suit was originally filed by Gregory Garvey of Sunderland. He was strip-searched at the jail in January 2007 after being arrested for failing to appear in court on a traffic violation. He was held overnight and was strip-searched again before a court appearance, at which his case was dismissed. "I am glad it's slowly coming to an end," said Mr. Garvey after Judge Neiman reviewed and gave preliminary approval to the agreement. "Justice moves slow, but justice is being served." Mr. Garvey, according to the settlement, will receive an additional $20,000 for the loss of his privacy and the time he has spent on the case. Mr. Garvey said, however, that he came forward to right a wrong and not for the money. "It was degrading," Mr. Garvey said. "I don't think it was necessary for a traffic violation." The Franklin County jail strip-search policy was changed later in 2007, when a new jail opened. At the time, David A. Lanoie, who was chief of staff for Sheriff Frederick B. Macdonald, said the old jail, built in 1887, was dilapidated and so cramped that for security reasons Mr. Garvey and others who had been arrested and were awaiting arraignment were always strip-searched because often they were literally inches from prisoners already in the jail. "The facts are the facts. We had a 19th-century facility, old and dilapidated," Mr. Lanoie said. On Monday, Judge Neiman praised the work of the plaintiff's attorney, Howard Friedman, Assistant Attorney General Kerry Strayer and others involved in crafting the settlement. The court has scheduled a final hearing on the fairness of the settlement for Jan. 14, 2011. If the court grants approval, money will be sent to class members who submit claim forms. Class members are defined as persons who were strip-searched without individualized reasonable suspicion between March 28, 2004, and Feb. 24, 2007, at the Franklin County Jail. They had to be waiting for a first court appearance or for bail to be set for a first court appearance. And they had to be arrested on charges that did not involve a weapon, drugs, contraband or a violent felony. Officials will now attempt to notify class members of the settlement. Class members must submit a claim form by Oct. 11 to secure a settlement. A copy of the form may be obtained at http://www.FranklinCountyJailClass.com/or by writing to the Garvey Claims Administrator, PO Box 2007, Chanhassen, MN 55317- 2007. Officials said the form may be not available on the Web site for another week or so. Claims will be administered by Analytics Inc. of Minnesota. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, follows a similar lawsuit dealing with strip-searches in Hampshire County, which resulted in a $205,000 settlement that involved nearly 100 plaintiffs in 2007. The Hampshire County lawsuit was brought by Worthington lawyer Charles V. Ryan IV, son of former Springfield Mayor Charles V. Ryan. The younger Ryan was arrested in early 2002 on a charge of violating a restraining order obtained by his now ex-wife. The plaintiff is represented by: LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD FRIEDMAN, P.C. 90 Canal Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 742-4100 MULTIBAND CORPORATION: Faces Overtime Lawsuit by Installers ----------------------------------------------------------- Nichols Kaster PLLP and Donati Law Firm LLP have brought a putative nationwide action on behalf of installers/technicians against Multiband Corporation, a Minnesota company. The lawsuit, entitled Edwards v. Multiband Corporation, Case No. 10-cv-02826, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on Thursday, July 1, 2010. Multiband is the second largest independent field services provider for DirecTV. Plaintiff Edwards performed installation and maintenance services for DirecTV subscribers for Multiband. Multiband treated Edwards as an "independent contractor." Edwards alleges that he and other similarly situated technicians should have been treated as "employees" of Multiband because Multiband exercised substantial control over their work. As an employee, Edwards should have been compensated for all of the overtime hours he worked each week. Plaintiffs' attorney Rachhana T. Srey, Esq., explained, "like the Department of Labor, we are focusing our attention on so-called 'independent contractors' because we truly believe that this is a rampant problem in many industries, especially in the cable and satellite television arena. These installers work extremely long hours, are usually paid only what they earn in 'piece-rates,' and work under the control of companies who operate a scheme to avoid paying overtime. It's not right." Plaintiffs are represented by Paul J. Lukas and Rachhana T. Srey from Nichols Kaster, PLLP, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and William B. Ryan and Bryce Ashby from Donati Law Firm, LLP in Memphis, Tennessee. Individuals may find additional information at http://www.overtimecases.com/or by calling Nichols Kaster toll free at (877) 448-0492. NEVADA CHEMICALS: Utah App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Braun Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Irving S. Braun owned two hundred shares of the more than seven million outstanding shares of Nevada Chemicals, Inc. In 2008, he challenged the sale of Nevada Chemicals to Oaktree Capital Management, LP; Calypso Acquisition Corp.; Cyanco Holding Corp.; and OCM Principal Opportunities Fund IV, LP. Plaintiff initially brought a direct class action against the Buyout Group, Nevada Chemicals, and individual directors of Nevada Chemicals but later amended his complaint, changing it to a derivative action. In both actions, he claimed that Defendants "breached their fiduciary duties and negotiated the merger for inadequate consideration due to their own self-interests." The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's action for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals of Utah affirmed. "Plaintiff has not presented us with any appealable issues. He does not challenge the trial court's ruling that he lacked standing to bring a derivative claim. We do not address the question of whether his claim should have been brought as a direct claim or as a derivative claim. Plaintiff took this question away from the trial court by amending his complaint to assert only a derivative claim," Judge J. Frederic Voros Jr. wrote. Judges William A. Thorne Jr., and Stephen L. Roth concurred. The case is Irving S. Braun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Nevada Chemicals, Inc.; E. Bryan Bagley; Nathan L. Wade; John T. Day; James E. Solomon; M. Garfield Cook; Nevada Chemicals, Inc.; Oaktree Capital Management, LP; Calypso Acquisition Corp.; Cyanco Holding Corp.; and OCM Principal Opportunities Fund IV, LP, Case No. 20090493-CA (Utah App.). A copy of the decision is available at http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inutco20100709b43 Mr. Braun is represented by: Jon V. Harper, Esq. Heather M. Sneddon, Salt Lake City, ANDERSON & KARRENBERG PC 50 West Broadway, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-2006 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 Facsimile: (801) 364-7697 The defendants are represented by: Robert S. Clark, Esq. Stephen E. Hale, Esq. Jenifer L. Tomchak, Esq. Mark F. James, Esq. Phillip J. Russell, Esq. PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, PC Suite 800, 185 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-1537 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 Facsimile: (801) 532-7750 PALM INC: Ill. Suit Complains About Defective Smart Phone, PDAs --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Palm's Treo 700 series smart phone/PDAs freeze and crash and have other problems, and Palm responds to complaints by replacing them with devices with the same defects, a class action claims in Cook County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Cioe v. Palm Inc., Case No. 10CH29545 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Illinois Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/12/PalmCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilan Chorowsky, Esq. David Gorodess, Esq. Anita Dellaria, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC 505 North LaSalle St., Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 787-2717 PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES: Kendall Probes Hefner's Buyout Proposal ------------------------------------------------------------ Kendall Law Group, a national securities firm led by a former federal judge and a former U.S. Attorney, is investigating Playboy Enterprises, Inc., for shareholders in connection with the proposed management buyout. The firm's investigation seeks to determine whether Playboy and its Board breached their fiduciary duties by not seeking a deal that would provide better value for shareholders. If you are a Playboy shareholder and would like additional information about your rights, contact the Kendall Law Group at 877-744-3728 or by email at skendall@kendalllawgroup.com On July 12, 2010, Hugh Hefner announced that he is offering to purchase all outstanding shares that he does not own and that he is planning to take the company private. Hefner is offering $5.50 per share in a deal worth approximately $185 million. Friend Finder Network announced plans to place a competing bid with Friend Finder Chief Executive Marc Bell stating that Hefner's offer "dramatically" undervalues Playboy. Hefner, who owns approximately 70% of Playboy's Class A common stock and 28% of its Class B stock, stated in his proposal letter that he is "not interested in any sale or merger of Playboy Enterprises, selling his shares to a third party or entering into discussions with any other financial sponsor for a similar transaction." Kendall Law Group was founded by a former federal judge Joe Kendall and includes a former United States Attorney, prosecutors and securities lawyers who are experienced in complex securities litigation. Since leaving the bench and returning 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. The firm has been counsel in numerous merger and acquisition cases nationwide, including some of the largest transactions in the United States. To contact Kendall: Scott Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 Dallas, Texas 75204 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 (877) 744-3728 Toll Free Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: skendall@kendalllawgroup.com POSTROCK ENERGY: Stipulation of Settlement Filed in Court --------------------------------------------------------- PostRock Energy Corporation reports that on July 9, 2010, a stipulation of settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma which, if approved by the Court, will resolve the pending securities class actions, first-filed derivative lawsuit, and two individual securities actions pending against the company and its current and former officers and directors. The company intends to contribute $1 million to the settlement of the lawsuits and approximately $0.4 million to resolve other potential liabilities associated with the litigation, according to the company's July 12, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Four putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma naming QRCP, QELP and Quest Energy GP, LLC, the general partner of the predecessor of QELP and certain of their then current and former officers and directors as defendants. The complaints were filed by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves and other stockholders who purchased QRCP common stock between May 2, 2005, and August 25, 2008, and QELP common units between Nov. 7, 2007, and Aug. 25, 2008. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements and concealing material facts concerning certain unauthorized transfers of funds from subsidiaries of QRCP to entities controlled by QRCP's former chief executive officer, Mr. Jerry D. Cash. The complaints also allege that, as a result of these actions, QRCP's stock price and the unit price of QELP was artificially inflated during the class period. On December 29, 2008, the court consolidated these complaints as Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose, Case No. 08-cv-936-M, in the Western District of Oklahoma. On September 24, 2009, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for each of the QRCP class and the QELP class. The lead plaintiffs must file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days after being appointed. On October 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial modification of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 discovery stay, which the defendants opposed and which the court denied on December 15, 2009. On November 4, 2009, the court granted the lead plaintiffs' unopposed request to file separate consolidated amended complaints. The court ordered that all pleadings and filings for the QELP class be filed under Friedman v. Quest Energy Partners, LP, et al., case no. 08-cv-936-M, and all pleadings and filings for the QRCP class be filed under Jents v. Quest Resource Corporation, et al., case no. 08-cv-968-M. The QELP lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on November 10, 2009. The consolidated complaint names as additional defendants David C. Lawler, Gary Pittman, Mark Stansberry, Murrell Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, and Eide Bailly LLP. The QRCP lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 7, 2009, which names Murrell, Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, Eide Bailly LLP, and various former QRCP directors as additional defendants. On December 23, 2009, QRCP and David C. Lawler filed a motion to dismiss the Friedman complaint, and on December 28, 2009, QELP, QEGP, Gary Pittman and Mark Stansberry filed a motion to dismiss the Friedman complaint. On Jan. 21, 2010, QRCP and the individual director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Jents complaint. No response to the motion to dismiss has yet been filed in either proceeding. On February 2, 2010, mediation was held among the parties. A second round of the mediation was held on April 2, 2010. An agreement to settle all of the federal securities lawsuits has been reached in principle. The Company is awaiting preparation and execution of a formal settlement agreement, which will be subject to Court approval. The Company is contributing $1 million to the proposed settlement of the lawsuits. PostRock Energy Corporation -- http://www.pstr.com/-- is a vertically integrated independent energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, production and transportation of oil and natural gas in the Cherokee Basin, the Appalachian Basin and Central Oklahoma. PostRock has over 2,800 wells and nearly 2,200 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines in the Cherokee Basin. The company also owns and operates nearly 400 natural gas and oil producing wells and undeveloped acreage in the Appalachian Basin of the northeastern United States and more than 1,100 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipelines in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri. TELESCOPE INC: 9th Cir. Denies Early Appeal in Lottery Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pulled the plug on an early appeal by producers of "American Idol" and "Deal or No Deal," who say a federal judge should have dismissed a class action accusing them of running an illegal lottery by inviting viewers to compete for cash prizes. The American Idol Challenge broadcast a trivia question about the popular talent show and invited viewers to text the correct answer to a certain number for a 99-cent fee. They could also enter it online for free and were allowed up to 10 entries, each correct submission giving them a shot at the cash prize. "Deal or No Deal" featured a similar game, called Lucky Chase, in which viewers were asked to choose a briefcase corresponding to a winning number. Five contestants who failed to win a prize "turned to the high- stakes world of class action litigation," according to the ruling. Their lawsuits were consolidated in Los Angeles Federal Court, where the shows' producers urged U.S. District Judge Florence- Marie Cooper to dismiss the class actions. She refused, sparking a "vehement" early appeal in which the defendants sought to certify legal questions to the California Supreme Court while the case was still pending. A court typically certifies such questions only if there is "substantial ground for difference of opinion," and an immediate appeal might speed up the resolution. Judge Cooper found no "difference of opinion," but agreed to let the defendants appeal, anyway, "in the interests of comity." The federal appellate panel in Pasadena said the producers have not met the requirements for an early appeal. Judge Cooper "expressly, and correctly, found that defendants had failed to demonstrate a substantial ground for difference of opinion," Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote. "Therefore, the question of law should not have been certified, and the certification order is jurisdictionally defective." "American Idol" defendants include Telescope Inc., American Idol Productions, Project Support Team, FremantleMedia North America, 19 Entertainment, CKX Inc., Fox Broadcasting Co. and Fox Interactive Media. The "Deal or No Deal" defendants are Endemol USA, NBC Universal, Verisign, M-Qube and Don Jagoda Associates. A copy of the Opinion in Couch v. Telescope Inc., et al., No. 08-56357, and Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA Inc., et al., No. 08-56360 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/dpVYW Plaintiff-Appellees Darlene Couch, et al. are represented by: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. Sabrina S. Kim, Esq. Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq. Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq. MILBERG LLP One California Plaza 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 617-1200 - and - Michael C. Spencer, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 (800) 320-5081 - and - Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP 8648 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 - and - Kevin T. Moore, Esq. KEVIN T. MOORE LAW OFFICES 6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd. Building C, Suite 20 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (770) 396-3622 - and - William A. Pannell, Esq. WILLIAM A. PANNELL, P.C. 3460 Kingsboro Rd. NE Townhouse Five Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 353-2283 Defendant-Appellants NBC Universal, Inc. et al. are represented by: Chad S. Hummel, Esq. Brad W. Seiling, Esq. Joanna S. McCallum, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Defendant-Appellant Endemol USA, Inc. is represented by: Patricia L. Glaser, Esq. GLASER, WEIL, FINK, JACOBS, HOWARD & SHAPIRO, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-3000 Defendant-Appellants Verisign, Inc. and m-Qube, Inc. are represented by: Ronald L. Johnston, Esq. Angel L. Tang, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 777 South Figueroa St., 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 TOMOTHERAPY INC: Accused in Wisc. Suit of Misleading Shareholders ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors inflated TomoTherapy's share price through false and misleading statements about its only product, and the company lost $213 in market value in a single day when the facts came out, shareholders claim in Dane County Court, Madison, Wisc. A copy of the Complaint in Huh v. TomoTherapy Incorporated, et al., Case No. 10-cv-3595 (Wisc. Cir. Ct., Dane Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/12/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas P. Dehler, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 111 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1750 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 226-9900 E-mail: ddehler@sfmslaw.com - and - Robert B. Weiser, Esq. Brett D. Stecker, Esq. Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. 121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 225-2677 WELLS FARGO: District Judge Grills Bank's Trial Witnesses --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Levine at The Recorder reports that U.S. District Judge William Alsup, during closing arguments Friday, asked much tougher questions of Covington & Burling partner Sonya Winner, Esq., who represents Wells Fargo, than of class counsel Richard Heimann, Esq., from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. Wells Fargo is fighting allegations that it improperly maximized its customers' overdraft fees. Wells Fargo produced trial witnesses to say the bank wasn't purely motivated by profit. Instead of posting each debit transaction chronologically, plaintiffs say the bank deducted customers' largest charges first, thus drawing down their available balances much more rapidly. Once the money was gone, each subsequent debit would incur its own overdraft fee. A bench trial took place this past spring, followed by a break. In his closing, Mr. Heimann presented Wells Fargo memos from the time it formulated the controversial overdraft policy. In them, bank employees bemoan a drop in overdrafts and the resulting revenue losses. When bank witnesses took the stand, they offered different justifications for the high fees -- like trying to deter customers from maxing out their accounts. "The plaintiffs' position is that's just poppycock," Mr. Heimann said. Judge Alsup picked up that thread when Ms. Winner came to the podium. No contemporaneous documents backed up Wells Fargo's explanations, he said. Rather, Judge Alsup said, there was a clear revenue motive. "That's what the documents said," Judge Alsup said. "You're honor, that's not what the documents said," Ms. Winner responded. "I saw it for myself! I don't understand how you can say that," Judge Alsup replied. At one point, Mr. Heimann told Judge Alsup that he really didn't need to discuss the demeanor of Wells Fargo's witnesses. Then, Mr. Heimann took a moment to do exactly that, describing them as nonresponsive on cross-examination. "But I needn't really go there," said Mr. Heimann, whose rhetorical tactic prompted a smirk from one Covington lawyer. Ms. Winner noted that banks also routinely process deposits ahead of debits, a procedure inconsistent with an institution that wants to gouge customers at all costs. But Mr. Heimann called that a red herring, adding that it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that the bank took advantage of every possible device to charge customers. Plaintiffs' damages estimates range from $69 million to $351 million. The trial holds added significance because of a much larger multidistrict class action against multiple banks in Florida. Federal banking laws pre-empt the state law claims at issue in the case, Ms. Winner said. And the formulation of the overdraft policy cited by plaintiffs pre-dated the class period, she said, which runs from 2004 to 2008. "The plaintiffs don't want to talk about the class period because they have nothing to say about it," Ms. Winner said. But Judge Alsup turned to the bank's disclosure of its overdraft policy, which was contained in small print, 27 pages into a brochure. He asked whether it should have been disclosed in a way that an "ordinary mortal" could pick up on. "You can't put everything on page one," Ms. Winner said, because another lawsuit would complain why their grievance wasn't disclosed first. The point, Ms. Winner said, is that the language was included. In rebuttal, Mr. Heimann responded that the disclosure was still misleading. Wells Fargo netted an average of $110 million a year in revenue as a result of overdrafts, he said, the vast majority from its poorest customers. "Those are the real victims of this," he said. For her part, Ms. Winner tried to downplay emotion and keep Alsup's focus on whether the bank made money improperly. "It is not illegal in California to make money," she told him. Judge Alsup said he would try to rule within the next two weeks. The report also notes the trial holds added significance because of a much larger multidistrict class action against multiple banks in Florida. WYETH: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, said a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Wyeth (NYSE: WYE) during the period between May 21, 2007 and July 29, 2008, inclusive. No class has yet been certified. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff no later than August 30, 2010 and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement and how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the Company during the Class Period. You are not required to have sold your shares to seek damages or to serve as a Lead Plaintiff. You may contact Brower Piven -- through hoffman@browerpiven.com or 410/415-6616 -- to answer any questions you may have in that regard. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company, during the Class Period, concealing material information and making false and misleading statements relating to Wyeth's most important pipeline drug, bapineuzumab, also known as AAB-001 (hereafter, "B- Mab"), including by improperly touting the success of clinical trial results relating to the safety and efficacy of B-Mab -- a potential billion-dollar-a-year Alzheimer's drug -- even though they had seen the preliminary results, and thus had knowledge that the trial was an abject failure, missing all clinical endpoints and demonstrating serious safety concerns. According to the complaint, when the full truth about the B-Mab clinical trial was revealed by the Company on July 29, 2008, the value of Wyeth shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a net loss for all transactions in Wyeth common stock during the Class Period, you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a lead plaintiff by contacting: BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: (410) 415-6616 E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com/ Attorneys at Brower Piven -- http://www.browerpiven.com-- have combined experience litigating securities and class action cases of over 40 years. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. * News Agency Probe Says Georgians Pay $53-Mil. More for Hot Gas ---------------------------------------------------------------- WSB-TV reports that a Channel 2 Action News consumer investigation found that Georgians are paying roughly $53 million more for gas during the hot summer months -- because the gas is too warm. Industry experts said warm gas saps the fuel's energy and a driver's mileage, forcing motorists to fill up more often. A handful of Georgians are suing several gasoline retailers in a class action lawsuit. WSB-TV relates Channel 2 consumer investigator Jim Strickland pumped gas at Love's Truck Stop, a defendant, then immediately measured the temperature. It read very close to 88 degrees. He also tested five more gas retailers selling different brands in five metro Atlanta counties. The average temperature read at 85 degrees. The industry standard is 60 degrees. WSB-TV reports industry experts said gas at 85 degrees is thinned to the point that drivers buy 2.2 ounces worth of decreased energy in every gallon. "[Mr.] Strickland found figures from the federal government showing that Georgia burns an average of 1.17 billion gallons of gas between the months of June and August. He did the math and took away 2.2 ounces each. The result is that Georgia drivers are shortened more than 20 million gallons of gas. At $2.60 per gallon, that's $53 million lost just in a Georgia summer," according to WSB-TV. "We're getting ripped off," the report quotes Rick DiGiorgio, Esq., an attorney in the class action lawsuit, as saying. "Most people absolutely do not know it." He may be reached at: G. Richard DiGiorgio, Esq. CORY, WATSON, CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue Birmingham, Alabama 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Telecopier: (205) 324-7896 According to WSB-TV, officials with one retailer, Costco, said they want to avoid the class action hassles. They plan to install temperature compensators whenever they upgrade their pumps. They said that should be done in five years. ********* 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 * * *