/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100825.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 25, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 167 Headlines ALABAMA: New Occupational Tax Suit Expected to Become Class Action AMBAC FINANCIAL: Court Hears Oral Argument in "Tolin" Suit ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers AURORA LOAN: Hagens Berman Files Class-Action Suit for Homeowners AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Still Pending BANK OF THE CASCADES: Accused of Breach of Contract BEAR LAKE GOLD: Ontario Ct. OKs $1.3-Mil. Class Suit Settlement BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Sex Abuse at Oakalla Prison BOWNE & CO: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger BP PLC: Faces New Oil Spill Lawsuit in New Orleans CABOT CORP: Cleared of Medical Monitoring Charges CHRYSLER GROUP: N.J. Suit Complains About Defective Dodge Brakes DENVER, CO: Judge Says DNC Arrests Lawsuit Can Be Class Action DIEBOLD INC: Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement Still Pending DIEBOLD INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio FEDEX GROUND: Faces Class Action Suit by Drivers in Massachusetts FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Taylor Suit FIDELITY NATIONAL: Wants Sanctions Imposed on Searcy Plaintiffs FIFTH THIRD: Antitrust Litigation Remains Pending FIFTH THIRD: Consolidated Securities Complaint Remains Pending FIRST DATA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Overcharging Merchants GILEAD SCIENCES: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Set Nov. 5 HAWAII: State Sup. Ct. Won't Hear Appeal on Teachers' Back Pay HUNTINGON BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Appeal on Securities Suit HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Consolidated ERISA Suit Settlement Pending ICX TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims J&J CHEMICAL: Trail Creek Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Oil Spill JACK KITZIS: Displaced Salisbury Tenants Mull Class Action KINDER MORGAN: Concludes Discovery in "Going Private" Suits KKR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending LOJACK CORP: Continues Defense vs. Employee Suit in California LOJACK CORP: Seeks Removal of Lawsuit to California District Court MASSEY ENERGY: Motion to Consolidate Two Suits Pending in Virginia MASSEY ENERGY: Units Still Awaiting Ruling on Class Certification MASSEY ENERGY: Spartan Appeal Pending in 4th Circuit MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Agrees to Settle Suits Over Zicam Cold Remedy MCAFEE INC: Being Sold to Intel for Too Little, Calif. Suit Says MEDQUIST INC: NJ Appellate Division Affirms "Kahn" Suit Dismissal MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion Opposing Plea to Amend Suit Still Pending MRV COMMS: Court to Consider Final OK of $10MM Settlement in Nov. NETCO INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit to Be Heard Friday ORIENT PAPER: Rosen Firm Reminds Investors of Oct. 5 Deadline PACIFIC CAPITAL: Ninth Circuit Dismisses Paskowitz's Appeal PIPER JAFFRAY: Remains a Defendant in Securities Violation Suits PRICELINE.COM INC: Settlement Agreement Signed in Monroe Suit PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suit by Lawrence County PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in "Genesee" Suit Ongoing PRICELINE.COM INC: Motion to Dismiss Pine Bluff's Suit Pending PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Nassau Suit Conducting Discovery PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal of "Marshall" Plaintiffs Still Pending PRICELINE.COM INC: Motion to Dismiss "Chiste" Remains Pending PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Walsh Files Voluntary Dismissal of Suit PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Defends Property Account Litigation in Iowa PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Hurd" Suit in Southern Iowa REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending REGIONS FIN'L: S.D.N.Y. Ct. Dismisses Suit by Securities Buyers REGIONS FIN'L: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Overdraft Fees SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime SOLTA MEDICAL: Reliant Subsidiary Defends Suit in California SOLTA MEDICAL: Inks Agreement to Settle TCPA-Violations Suit SPRINT NEXTEL: Accused of Breaching Manufacturer's Warranty SPRINT NEXTEL: Judge Permits Arbitration Between Firms Over Fees STRYKER CORP: NY Securities Suit Transferred to Michigan Court SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Charged With Usury and Conversion TRANSMITTER SOLUTIONS: Sued for Making Unsolicited Fax Ads TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Dentists' Suit UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Ethridge Action VERIZON: Sued for Not Providing Family Leave Benefits to Workers VERMONT: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Overtime Lawsuit VULCAN MATERIALS: Subsidiary Defends Two Consolidated Complaints VULCAN MATERIALS: Class Certification Hearing in Addair Stayed WHITNEY CANADA: Quebec Court Okays Class Action in Land-Fraud Case ********* ALABAMA: New Occupational Tax Suit Expected to Become Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Collins at WBRC reports that a Montgomery Judge is expected to okay a request to turn a lawsuit challenging Jefferson County's new occupational tax into a class action case. On Friday morning, Montgomery Judge Charles Price held a hearing about the request. Judge Price received the case after Jefferson County judges recused themselves from the case. Attorney Clayton Lowe Jr. filed the lawsuit. Mr. Lowe contends the new occupational tax was not properly passed by Alabama legislature. On Tuesday last week, the Jefferson County Commission voted to settle a lawsuit which struck down the old occupational tax. Commissioners say if they lose the latest lawsuit it could again plunge the county into a financial crisis where county workers had to be put on administrative leave and satellite court houses shut down. Attorneys for Jefferson County say they will not oppose turning it into a class action. Another hearing is set for later this year. AMBAC FINANCIAL: Court Hears Oral Argument in "Tolin" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York heard, on August 4, 2010, oral argument on the motion by Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al., to dismiss a securities complaint filed by Stanley Tolin, et al., according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241. An amended complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009. This action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 from June 29, 2007 through April 22, 2008. The STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly issued by a subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly collateralized solely by Ambac's DISCS. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial results and Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in violation of the securities laws. On April 15, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants named in Tolin moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 23, 2009, the Court initially denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but later recalled that decision and requested further briefing from parties in the case before it rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss. The additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010, and oral argument on the motion to dismiss was heard on August 4, 2010. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.ambac.com/-- is a primarily a holding company. The company, through its subsidiaries, provides financial guarantees and financial services to clients in both the public and private sectors worldwide. Ambac's activities are divided into two business segments. The Financial Guarantee segment provides financial guarantees (including credit derivatives) for public finance, structured finance and other obligations. ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to face claims raised in several purported class-actions filed on behalf of purchasers of filters. On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including a prior subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the defendants. Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on these same allegations. On May 25, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington informed the company that it also was investigating the allegations raised in these suits. No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- supplies integrated systems, modules and components to the motor vehicle industry. The Company celebrated its centennial anniversary in 2009. The company serves commercial truck, trailer and specialty original equipment manufacturers and certain aftermarkets, and light vehicle manufacturers. AURORA LOAN: Hagens Berman Files Class-Action Suit for Homeowners ----------------------------------------------------------------- A group of homeowners Friday filed a class-action lawsuit against Aurora Loan Services LLC, claiming the mortgage company duped them into paying tens of thousands of dollars each to have troubled mortgages reviewed by the company with promises of loan modifications, only to have their property foreclosed with little or no notice. The suit states that Aurora reaped more than $100 million in what the court documents call "illicit profits" from the alleged scheme. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, the suit seeks to represent homeowners who paid the Littleton, Colo.-based company money in exchange for the company's help in 'curing' delinquent home mortgages. In exchange for between three and six large monthly payments, Aurora said it would halt the foreclosure process and work with homeowners to restructure, modify or resell the loan, allowing homeowners a chance to keep their homes, the suit states. "We intend to prove that Aurora's workout plan was nothing more than a cynical ploy to take advantage of homeowners desperate to hold on to their homes," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and the attorney representing the proposed class. The suit contends that, after a period of months, Aurora foreclosed on the homes without giving the borrowers any notice that their requests for loan modification were denied and without allowing borrowers access to any method for ending their loan deficiency, despite the provisions of the workout agreements. The suit states that the workout agreements provided for four methods for ending loan deficiency: bringing the loan current, refinancing with another lender, modification of the terms of the loan at the discretion of Aurora and another workout option at the company's discretion. "The past three years have been tough enough on homeowners without them having to worry about being preyed upon by unscrupulous loan services," Mr. Berman said. The complaint outlines the stories of two married couples who engaged Aurora in an attempt to forestall foreclosure. The first couple, from San Jose, refinanced their home with a mortgage company in early 2006. Two years later, the couple suffered economic setbacks in the form of poorly performing investments and a temporary loss of work. In late 2009, the couple contacted Aurora and signed one of the so-called workout agreements. Over the next several months, the couple paid a total of $33,500 in return for Aurora's promise to work on modifying the terms of the loan, among other possible outcomes. In May 2010, the family was served with a Notice to Vacate, indicating their home had been sold in foreclosure. The family had received no prior notice that the foreclosure process had been completed. In addition, Aurora did not notify the family that it had been denied a loan modification, according to the complaint. In another instance, a second San Jose couple refinanced their home in mid-2007. Two years later, the couple suffered financial hardship as a result of an illness and the death of a parent, which led to increased expenses and loss of income. In early 2009, the couple contacted Aurora and signed one of the company's workout agreements, the complaint alleges. Over the next several months, the family paid a total of $23,700 in return for Aurora's promise to work on modifying the terms of their loan. Like the first couple, the family was served with a Notice to Vacate in late June 2010, signaling their home had been sold in foreclosure. The family was not told prior to receiving the notice that the foreclosure process on their home had begun, according to the complaint. "We've heard of cases like this a lot over the last few years," Mr. Berman said. "We'd like to bring struggling homeowners some sense of relief." The complaint -- which can be found at http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/aurora-- accuses Aurora of negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act and other violations of California law. Hagens Berman believes the workout agreements were fraudulent in nature and seeks to have the agreements declared void. The firm also seeks an injunction against Aurora forbidding the company from continued offering of its deceptive workout agreements, restitution to be determined at trial, damages to be determined at trial and trial and attorneys' fees. If you entered into a so-called workout agreement with Aurora, you are encouraged to join this case. Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com/-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Washington, D.C. Founded in 1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for consumer rights in large, complex litigation. AXIS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit against AXIS Capital Holdings Limited's U.S. insurance subsidiaries remains pending. In 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company's U.S. insurance subsidiaries. The suit is In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation and was filed on Aug. 15, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and includes as defendants numerous insurance brokers and insurance companies. The lawsuit alleges antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations in connection with the payment of contingent commissions and manipulation of insurance bids and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On Oct. 3, 2006, the District Court granted, in part, motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, and ordered plaintiffs to file supplemental pleadings setting forth sufficient facts to allege their antitrust and RICO claims. After plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings, defendants renewed their motions to dismiss. On April 15, 2007, the District Court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, and granted plaintiffs 30 days to file another amended complaint and/or revised RICO Statement and Statements of Particularity. In May 2007, plaintiffs filed: (i) a Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action complaint, (ii) a Revised Particularized Statement Describing the Horizontal Conspiracies Alleged in the Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint, and (iii) a Third Amended Commercial Insurance Plaintiffs' RICO Case Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(4). On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss. On Sept. 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. On Oct. 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of all adverse orders and decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and a hearing was held in April 2009. No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. AXIS Capital Holdings Limited -- http://www.axiscapital.com/-- is a Bermuda-based global provider of specialty lines insurance and treaty reinsurance with shareholders' equity at March 31, 2010 of $5.4 billion and locations in Bermuda, the United States, Europe, Singapore, Canada and Australia. BANK OF THE CASCADES: Accused of Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------- Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, bondholders say the Bank of the Cascades cost them $23.5 million by handing over the money to a company that "had no assets, no investments, no independent income, and in fact was prohibited from receiving bond proceeds under the terms of the offering documents." Named plaintiffs Russell and Rena Firkins say the bank "utterly failed to fulfill its obligations" in bonds issued by a real estate investment company. The Firkins say the bank knowingly issued bond proceeds into a "shell corporation," DBSI Realty, which had no assets or income. "In return, defendant obtained 'security' in a number of leases to which DBSI Realty was not even a party. As difficult as this may be to believe, these are facts found by the United States Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware," according to the complaint. The class claims the bank should have known DBSI a shell corporation that acted as "paymaster" for a group of DBSI companies. It claims that the Delaware bankruptcy judge issued an opinion in May this year, finding that DBSI Realty was not a party to any of the master leases for the bonds, that the leases did not describe security interests between any entities other than the lessor and lessee, and that property records made no reference to Bank of the Cascades nor the assignments to the bondholder trusts. "The court concluded that DBSI Realty had no security interests in anything," the complaint states. "By disbursing all of the bond proceeds to DBSI Realty, a company with no investments, no assets, and no income, defendant left the bondholders with nothing." The Firkins seek class damages of more than $23.5 million, and "punitive damages, if available," for breach of contract and conversion. A copy of the Complaint in Firkins, et ux. v. Bank of the Cascades, Case No. 10-cv-00414 (D. Idaho) (Dale, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/CascadesBank.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip H. Gordon, Esq. Bruce S. Bistline, Esq. GORDON LAW OFFICES 623 West Hays St. Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: 208-345-7100 - and - Geoffrey Bestor, Esq. 4204 Maple Terrace Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Telephone: 240-463-8503 E-mail: gbesq@bestorlaw.com BEAR LAKE GOLD: Ontario Ct. OKs $1.3-Mil. Class Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that Bear Lake Gold Ltd. (TSX:BLG) said Wednesday that the Ontario Superior Court has approved the $1.3-million settlement of a shareholder class action. The suit was filed against Bear Lake Gold last summer over inconsistencies in exploration data at its Larder Lake property. Quebec-based Bear Lake Gold said the settlement was approved on Aug. 10, and is not an admission of wrongdoing by the defendants, who continue to deny the allegations against them. Siskinds LLP filed the suit against Bear Lake last August, alleging "serious material inconsistencies in its exploration data." As part of the settlement, former vice-president of exploration Bernard Boily has agreed not to accept a position as an officer or director of an Ontario publicly traded company for 10 years. The settlement payment will be shared among people or entities who bought stock of BLG on the TSX Venture Exchange on or after July 18, 2006, and held them on July 17, 2009. BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Sex Abuse at Oakalla Prison ------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Moreau, writing for Burnaby Now, reports that North Vancouver's Poyner Baxter LLP is filing a class action lawsuit against the provincial government over a former Oakalla worker who was allegedly sexually assaulting inmates. If successful, the suit would apply to all those who were similarly victimized at Oakalla, also known as the Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Centre. The suit identifies the plaintiff by his initials only -- E.D.L. -- but names the former staffer as Roderick David MacDougall. The offences against E.D.L. occurred in 1980 and 1981, when he was in his late teens. Mr. MacDougall was criminally convicted of nine counts of indecent or sexual assault and served a prison term. Nine previous civil actions against the government and Mr. MacDougall were also successful, and compensation was usually in the area of $50,000 to $60,000. "What bothers me about all of this, precipitating the class action against the government, is that more than 100 other victims of MacDougall had been identified by the date of the last court case in 2006," said lawyer Jim Poyner. "Why did the government not conduct a thorough review and make sure that all of the victims were found, interviewed and helped in whatever fashion appeared to be best suited to each individual case?" Mr. Poyner said Mr. MacDougall had not been charged and convicted of crimes against E.D.L. "He was already charged and convicted in criminal court. We're not seeking additional time, we're dealing with this as a civil matter," Mr. Poyner said, adding he's expecting a lot of other victims to come forward. "He was in that position for 21 years, and our investigation into the situation was he was attacking people on a regular basis. Over 21 years, there could be a lot of people," Mr. Poyner said. "The provincial government had to know what was going on several years ago," he added. "The main thing that really annoys me about this is the government had to know, . . . and they did nothing about it." Mr. MacDougall worked in a supervisory position as Oakalla's pass and transfer coordinator. He was approving day passes and other benefits for inmates, and the allegations are that he used these things as bribes to participate in oral sex and other illicit activities. Burnaby resident Ronald Jack is working on documentary film about Oakalla, interviewing former inmates and guards and researching the prison's history. "I'm sure there are lots of people out there who were victims. They will appear," he said. While Mr. Jack said he hadn't heard anything about the MacDougall case in particular, he's heard similar tales. "I've heard many, many stories about sexual abuse and favours that were exchanged. There was never a public inquiry. Maybe this class action suit will trigger something," he said. Oakalla used to be on the South Slope, overlooking Burnaby's Deer Lake. It was shut down in 1991 and eventually demolished. At press time, a statement of defence had not been filed, and allegations in the suit have not been proven in court. BOWNE & CO: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Bowne & Co., Inc., has entered in a memorandum of understanding to resolve a consolidated complaint arising out of its planned merger with R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On Feb. 23, 2010, the company entered into an agreement and plan of merger with R.R. Donnelley. The merger agreement was approved by the Boards of Directors of the parties to the merger agreement. The merger was also approved by the company's shareholders in May 2010. The company, members of its board of directors and management, R.R. Donnelley and Merger Sub were named as defendants in four purported class action lawsuits brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and consolidated under the caption and index number Sartoretti v. Bowne & Co., Inc., et al., Index No. 600531/2010. The consolidated complaint filed on April 12, 2010, alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the directors and officers in connection with the acquisition contemplated by the merger agreement, and asserts aiding and abetting claims against the company, R.R. Donnelly and Merger Sub. On April 21, 2010, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, which contemplates, subject to completion of definitive settlement documents and court approval, a settlement of the consolidated cases. The Company has accrued approximately $600,000 as of June 30, 2010 related to the estimated settlement costs. Bowne & Co., Inc. -- http://www.bowne.com/-- provides shareholder and marketing communications services around the world. Dealmakers rely on Bowne to handle critical capital markets communications with speed and accuracy. Compliance professionals turn to Bowne to prepare and file regulatory and shareholder communications online and in print. Investment managers and third party fund administrators count on Bowne's integrated solutions to streamline their document processes and produce high quality communications for their shareholders. Marketers look to Bowne to create and distribute customized, one-to-one communications on demand. With 2,700 employees in 50 offices around the globe, Bowne has met the ever-changing demands of its clients for more than 230 years. BP PLC: Faces New Oil Spill Lawsuit in New Orleans -------------------------------------------------- Michelle Krupa, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports a class action lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in New Orleans charges that BP and other companies involved in drilling the ill- fated Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico should be held liable for punitive damages. The suit on behalf of Corliss Gallo, a Grand Terre Island landowner whose property was degraded by the oil leak and trampled by clean-up workers, says that the "outrageous conduct" by BP, Transocean Ltd., Cameron International and Halliburton represents "a common thread of gross negligence and willful, wanton, and reckless indifference for the rights of others." The suit, believed to be the first to tackle the controversial question of punitive damages, seeks to test an opening left by the landmark 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that knocked down the punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case in Alaska. After an Alaska jury in 1994 awarded fishermen and others suing Exxon $5 billion in punitive damages, a series of court rulings culminating in the Supreme Court decision reduced the payment to $507.5 million, an amount equal to the actual damages awarded. The tanker struck a reef in Prince William Sound in 1989. The Supreme Court said that a one-to-one ratio of punitive to compensatory damages was "a fair upper limit" in maritime cases. However, in its opinion, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that in the case of reckless profiteering, punitive damages could rise to as much as three times the actual damages caused, the level set by law in some states. In its opinion, the Supreme Court noted that the behavior of the Valdez captain, who was fatigued and possibly drunk, was "worse than negligent but less than malicious" because his actions didn't increase Exxon's profits. In discussing situations where a three-to-one punitive damage ratio might be warranted, the Supreme Court noted that there could be "quite different cases involving some of the most egregious conduct, including malicious behavior and dangerous activity carried on for the purpose of increasing a (defendant's) financial gain." Dawn Barrios, the New Orleans maritime attorney who filed the Gallo case, believes the BP oil disaster fits the exception. The suit she filed Friday weaves together early findings of Coast Guard and Congressional hearings on the Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill to paint a picture of companies that knowingly took risks and failed to fix equipment because they were too busy trying to make a buck. "Punitive damages are going to be a critical component of this litigation because the behavior was so egregious, and the Feinberg fund is not going to cover punitive damages," Ms. Barrios said, referring to the $20 billion BP compensation fund administered by Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg at the behest of the Obama administration. In filing the case, Ms. Barrios is joined by Elizabeth J. Cabraser, the San Francisco attorney who was co-lead counsel representing plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez suit. The Gallo case will most certainly get rolled into the litigation over the BP oil disaster that has been consolidated before Judge Carl Barbier, Ms. Barrios said. Judge Barbier is likely to subdivide the massive case into different tracks, such as personal injury, natural resource damages, economic injury damages, racketeering charges and punitive damages. CABOT CORP: Cleared of Medical Monitoring Charges ------------------------------------------------- Cabot Corporation obtained Court rulings dismissing it from charges of medical monitoring in beryllium-related lawsuits, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Cabot has been a party to several actions in connection with its discontinued beryllium operations in Reading, Pennsylvania. Cabot entered the beryllium industry through an acquisition in 1978. The Company ceased manufacturing beryllium products at one of the acquired facilities in 1979, and the balance of its former beryllium business was sold to NGK Metals, Inc. in 1986. The actions involve claims for personal injury and medical monitoring relating to alleged contact with beryllium in various ways and are pending in state court in Pennsylvania, and, until the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County. In June 2010, Cabot was dismissed with prejudice from the cases pending in the Superior Court of California, all of which involved claims for medical monitoring. Also in June 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in Cabot's favor in the Sheridan et al. v. NGK North America, Inc. et al., and Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., et al., class actions, which also involved claims for medical monitoring. Boston-based Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and coatings. The Company also holds its own as a maker of fumed metal oxides like fumed silica and fumed alumina, which are used as anti-caking, thickening, and reinforcing agents in adhesives and coatings. CHRYSLER GROUP: N.J. Suit Complains About Defective Dodge Brakes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that brakes on Chrysler's 2009- 2010 Dodge Journeys are "inadequate for the size and weight of the Journey" and "fail at barely 12,000 miles," a class action claims in Newark Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Tatum, et al. v. Chrysler Group LLC, Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 9247 in Case No. 33-av- 00001 on Aug. 19, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/ChryslerCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Rd. Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: 973-994-1700 - and - Steven N. Berk, Esq. BERK LAW PLLC 1225 Fifteenth St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-232-7550 - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW LLC 1818 Market St., 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 610-660-9631 - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Scott Alan George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 550 Broad St. Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: 973-639-9100 - and - Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: 215-540-8888 E-mail: ckimmel@lemonlaw.com DENVER, CO: Judge Says DNC Arrests Lawsuit Can Be Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a U.S. district judge ruled Friday that a lawsuit against the Denver Police Department for mass arrests during the Democratic National Convention in Denver can become a class action suit. Court papers say 92 people were arrested on Aug. 25 during the 2008 convention. The lawsuit names the City and County of Denver and at least three police officers. DIEBOLD INC: Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ The settlement of a consolidated class-action suit against Diebold, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, is pending final approval, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The Company has been served with various lawsuits, filed against it and certain current and former officers and directors, by shareholders and participants in the Company's 401(k) savings plan, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties with respect to the 401(k) plan. These complaints seek compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, fees and expenses related to the lawsuits and the granting of extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief: -- McDermott v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV170 (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 24, 2006). -- Barnett v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV361 (N.D. Ohio, filed Feb. 15, 2006). -- Farrell v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV307 (N.D. Ohio, filed Feb. 8, 2006). -- Forbes v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV324 (N.D. Ohio, filed Feb. 10, 2006). -- Gromek v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV579 (N.D. Ohio, filed March 14, 2006). The McDermott, Barnett, Farrell, Forbes and Gromek cases, which allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the 401(k) plan, have been consolidated into a single proceeding. In May 2009, the Company agreed to settle the 401(k) class action litigation for $4.5 million, to be paid out of the Company's insurance policies. The settlement is subject to final documentation and approval of the court. Diebold, Incorporated -- http://www.diebold.com/-- is a global leader in providing integrated self-service delivery and security systems and services. Diebold employs more than 16,000 associates with representation in nearly 90 countries worldwide and is headquartered in Canton, Ohio, USA. DIEBOLD INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- A complaint has been filed against Diebold, Incorporated, in Ohio Court for violations of federal securities laws, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities laws against the Company, certain current and former officers, and the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana Police Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No. 10-CV-1461). The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and fees and expenses related to the lawsuit. The complaint generally relates to the matters set forth in the court documents filed by the SEC on June 2, 2010. On June 2, 2010, the SEC filed materials in U.S. District Court finalizing the settlement of civil charges stemming from the investigation conducted by the Division of Enforcement of the SEC. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company has consented, without admitting or denying civil securities fraud charges, to a judgment requiring payment of a civil penalty of $25 million and an injunction against committing or causing any violations or future violations of certain specified provisions of the federal securities laws. The Company paid the penalty to the SEC in June 2010. Diebold, Incorporated -- http://www.diebold.com/-- is a global leader in providing integrated self-service delivery and security systems and services. Diebold employs more than 16,000 associates with representation in nearly 90 countries worldwide and is headquartered in Canton, Ohio, USA. FEDEX GROUND: Faces Class Action Suit by Drivers in Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Transport Topics News reports more than 30 current and former FedEx Ground drivers brought a class-action lawsuit against the company last week in a federal court in Massachusetts, alleging that they were misclassified as independent contractors. Plaintiffs alleged in court papers that they were denied health and pension benefits, among others, because of FedEx Ground's "unlawful misclassification of drivers as independent contractors instead of employees." FedEx maintains that its drivers are properly classified as independent contractors. "This attorney has filed complaints with virtually identical allegations multiple times," FedEx Ground spokesman Maury Lane told Transport Topics Thursday. "Only the names have been changed." The lawsuit, filed Tuesday last week in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, is the latest brought against FedEx Ground by drivers who say the company treated them as employees and not as contractors. Similar litigation is still pending in other districts. FedEx Ground is a unit of FedEx Corp., ranked No. 2 on the Transport Topics 100 listing of U.S. and Canadian for-hire carriers. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Taylor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling dismissing the matter Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company et al., according to Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The Biometric suit was filed against the company's Certegy Check Services, Inc., subsidiary. A putative class action lawsuit styled Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions, Inc. et al., was filed against eFunds Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the company, and seven other non-related parties in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida during the second quarter of 2003. The complaint alleged that eFunds purchased motor vehicle records that were used for marketing and other purposes that are not permitted under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The plaintiffs sought statutory damages, plus costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief. eFunds and five of the other seven defendants settled the case with the plaintiffs. That settlement was approved by the court over the objection of a group of Texas drivers and motor vehicle record holders. The Fresco plaintiffs moved to amend the court's order approving the settlement in order to seek a greater attorneys' fee award and to recover supplemental costs. In the meantime, the objectors filed two class action complaints styled Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company et al. and Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas during the first quarter of 2007 alleging similar violations of the DPPA. The Acxiom action was filed against the company's ChexSystems, Inc. subsidiary, while the Biometric suit was filed against the company's Certegy Check Services, Inc. subsidiary. The judge recused himself in the Biometric action against Certegy because he was a potential member of the class. The lawsuit was then assigned to a new judge and Certegy filed a motion to dismiss. The district court granted Certegy's motion to dismiss with prejudice in the third quarter of 2008. The Biometric plaintiffs appealed and after several extensions, arguments on appeal were heard on Nov. 4, 2009. In the Acxiom case, ChexSystems filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative, stay the action against it based upon the earlier settlement, and the court granted the motion to stay pending resolution of the Florida case. The court dismissed the ChexSystems lawsuit with prejudice against the remaining defendants in the third quarter of 2008. The Acxiom plaintiffs moved the court to amend the dismissal to exclude defendants that were parties to the Florida settlement, and that motion was granted. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the court in the ChexSystems case dismissed with prejudice all claims of the plaintiffs who were not also plaintiffs in the Florida case, against ChexSystems and the other defendants. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal order, but excluded ChexSystems and the other settling defendants from the appeal. The Florida case was dismissed without prejudice during the fourth quarter of 2009. After final resolution of the Florida case, the parties in the Acxiom case stipulated to a dismissal of ChexSystems and the other defendants from this action, and the court issued its final order of dismissal without prejudice. The time for appeals in the Acxiom case has now expired. In the Biometric case, on July 14, 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order of dismissal with prejudice. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. -- http://www.fisglobal.com/-- delivers banking and payments technologies to more than 14,000 financial institutions and businesses in over 100 countries worldwide. FIS provides financial institution core processing, and card issuer and transaction processing services, including the NYCE(R) Network. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Wants Sanctions Imposed on Searcy Plaintiffs --------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., has filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel in the matter Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds Corporation. The sanction requested is based on plaintiff's alleged false statements that were filed in support of the motion for class certification, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. This is a nationwide putative class action that was originally filed against eFunds and its affiliate Deposit Payment Protection Services, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois during the first quarter of 2008. The complaint seeks damages for an alleged willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with the operation of the Shared Check Authorization Network. Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did not receive appropriate disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of the FCRA because the disclosures did not include: (i) all information in the consumer's file at the time of the request; (ii) the source of the information in the consumer's file; and/or (iii) the names of any persons who requested information related to the consumer's check writing history during the prior year. The company answered the complaint and is vigorously defending the matter. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification which was granted with respect to two subclasses during the first quarter of 2010. The motion was denied with respect to all other subclasses. The company filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion was granted and the two subclasses were decertified. The plaintiff also filed motions to amend her complaint to add two additional plaintiffs to the lawsuit. The court granted the motions. Discovery regarding the new plaintiffs is ongoing. During the second quarter of 2010, the company filed a motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff and a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel based on plaintiff's alleged false statements that were filed in support of the motion for class certification. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. -- http://www.fisglobal.com/-- delivers banking and payments technologies to more than 14,000 financial institutions and businesses in over 100 countries worldwide. FIS provides financial institution core processing, and card issuer and transaction processing services, including the NYCE(R) Network. FIFTH THIRD: Antitrust Litigation Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- A consolidated antitrust class action to which Fifth Third Bancorp is a defendant remains in the pre-trial phase, according to the company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa. Accordingly, prior to the sale of Class B shares during 2009, the Bancorp recorded a litigation reserve of $243 million to account for its potential exposure in this and related litigation. The Bancorp also recorded its proportional share of $199 million of the Visa escrow account funded with proceeds from the Visa IPO along with several subsequent fundings. Upon the Bancorp's sale of Visa, Inc. Class B shares during 2009, and the recognition of the total return swap that transfers conversion risk of the Class B shares back to the Bancorp, the Bancorp reversed the remaining net litigation reserve related to the Bancorp's exposure through Visa. In addition, the Bancorp has remaining reserves related to the litigation of $26 million and $22 million as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers, including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri. The Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors and Fifth Third Processing Solutions. FIFTH THIRD: Consolidated Securities Complaint Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities class action complaint asserted against Fifth Third Bancorp and its chief executive officer remains pending, according to the company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Bancorp and its CEO, among other parties. The five cases have been consolidated, and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures made by the Bancorp in press releases and filings with the SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit losses and related matters, and seeking unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who either purchased the Bancorp's securities, or acquired the Bancorp's securities pursuant to the acquisition of First Charter Corporation. Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers, including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri. The Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors and Fifth Third Processing Solutions. FIRST DATA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Overcharging Merchants ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that First Data Corp. overcharges retailers through predatory, fraudulent and illegal business practices, the merchants claim in a class action in San Mateo County Court, Calif. A copy of the Complaint in Madanat v. First Data Corporation, et al., Case No. 497691 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/CreditCardCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Ali Abtahi, Esq. Idene Saam, Esq. ABTAHI LAW FIRM 1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 204 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: 650-341-1300 E-mail: aabtahi@abtahilaw.com isaam@abtahilaw.com GILEAD SCIENCES: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Set Nov. 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Final court approval of Gilead Sciences, Inc.'s $8.25 million settlement of a securities class action lawsuit will be considered on Nov. 5, 2010, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Since November 2003, the company has been defending a class action securities lawsuit purportedly brought on behalf of a class made up of all purchasers of our stock between July 14 and October 28, 2003. The lawsuit names Gilead and six current and former executives of Gilead as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, by making certain alleged false and misleading statements. On May 12, 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California executed orders dismissing in its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. On August 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case to the District Court. On February 6, 2009, the company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, requesting that the court review the judgment of the court of appeals. In April 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition. On February 13, 2009, the company filed a further motion to dismiss the fourth consolidated amended complaint on alternative grounds. On June 3, 2009, the District Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss and gave plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On July 10, 2009, plaintiffs filed a fifth consolidated amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the fifth consolidated amended complaint, which the District Court heard on October 9, 2009. In an order dated October 13, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss. On November 16, 2009, we filed an answer to the fifth consolidated amended complaint. In March 2010, the company agreed to settle the dispute. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss the action and release all claims against Gilead and each of the individual defendants. In exchange, the company agreed to pay $8.25 million to the class members. The proposed settlement amount will be paid in full by our insurance carriers. Further, Gilead and the individual defendants continue to deny that they committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability and/or violation of law. On July 7, 2010, the District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval to the settlement. The District Court will hold a hearing on November 5, 2010 to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. Gilead Sciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment of life-threatening infectious diseases. The Company is headquartered in Foster City, Calif. HAWAII: State Sup. Ct. Won't Hear Appeal on Teachers' Back Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Travis Kaya, writing for The Honolulu Star-Advertiser, reports that the Hawaii Supreme Court will not take up the state's appeal of a ruling that requires the Department of Education to give substitute teachers millions of dollars in back pay. That means the case will go back to Circuit Court, where the state and substitute teachers will work out an agreement over how much the substitutes are owed. An attorney for the substitutes said August 17 that back pay for about 10,000 teachers affected by the decision could top $30 million. "Every day the state delayed paying this debt, it hurt the teachers," said attorney Paul Alston. "We're glad that we're now going to be going back to the Circuit Court to have the amount of damages calculated." The Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled in October that the state underpaid thousands of Hawaii substitute teachers between 2000 and 2005. The Supreme Court's action means that the Intermediate Court decision stands, and the case will be returned to Circuit Court to decide how much the teachers are owed. The case stems from a 2002 complaint from Maui substitute teacher David Garner, who claimed that the DOE violated a 1996 state law pegging pay for substitute teachers to rates for Class II teachers -- full-time instructors who have bachelor's degrees but lack advanced training. Between 1996 and 2005, pay for substitute teachers increased just 11%, compared with 40% for Class II teachers. The department, however, claimed that state guidelines for substitute teacher salaries were unclear and that the teachers were receiving the pay to which they were entitled. Following a 2005 Circuit Court decision in the teachers' favor, the DOE filed an appeal with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, which agreed with the lower court. Earlier this year the state filed its final appeal with the Hawaii Supreme Court, which had until Monday to decide whether it would hear the case. "We're disappointed they chose not to hear it," said Deputy Attorney General Dorothy Sellers. "We are hoping for a fair and speedy resolution." Although substitute teachers claimed they were illegally underpaid from 1996, Circuit Judge Karen Ahn ruled in 2005 that a statute of limitations allowed plaintiffs to claim back pay for only the period between November 2000 and June 2005, when the Legislature changed the substitute salary guidelines. Back pay will be calculated through a computerized analysis of the department's payroll records during the relevant years to determine the difference in the salaries of substitute and Class II teachers. According to Mr. Alston, the Supreme Court's decision will also have some bearing on a separate but similar class-action lawsuit brought by 15,000 part-time teachers because their salaries are based on substitute teacher pay. The lawsuit for the part-time teachers has been put on hold by the Circuit Court pending the resolution of the substitute teacher case. HUNTINGON BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Appeal on Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs of a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit against Huntington Banchares, Inc., have dismissed their appeal, with prejudice, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's dismissal order, according to the company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010. Between December 19, 2007 and February 1, 2008, two putative class actions were filed in the Ohio District Court against Huntington and certain of its current or former officers and directors purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Huntington securities during the periods July 20, 2007 to November 16, 2007, or July 20, 2007 to January 10, 2008. On June 5, 2008, the two cases were consolidated into a single action. On August 22, 2008, a consolidated complaint was filed asserting a class period of July 19, 2007 through November 16, 2007, alleging that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning Huntington's financial results, prospects, and condition, relating, in particular, to its transactions with Franklin Credit Management. The action was dismissed on December 4, 2009, and the plaintiffs thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Huntington Bancshares, Inc. -- https://www.huntington.com/ -- is a multi-state diversified financial holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, reinsurance of private mortgage insurance, reinsurance of credit life and disability insurance, retail and commercial insurance agency services, and other financial products and services. The company has three lines of business: Regional Banking, Dealer Sales, and the Private Financial and Capital Markets Group (PFCMG). A fourth segment, Treasury/Other, includes the company's treasury function. The company's only banking subsidiary is The Huntington National Bank. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Consolidated ERISA Suit Settlement Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Settlement of a consolidated Employee Retirement Income Security Act complaint has not been finalized or approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, according to Huntington Bancshares Incorporated's Aug. 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010. Between Feb. 20 and 29, 2008, three putative class-action lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the company, the Huntington Bancshares Incorporated Pension Review Committee, the Huntington Investment and Tax Savings Plan Administrative Committee, and certain of the company's officers and directors purportedly on behalf of participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan between July 1, 2007, or July 20, 2007, and the present. The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act relating to the company's stock being offered as an investment alternative for participants in the Plan. They seek money damages and equitable relief. On May 13, 2008, the three cases were consolidated into a single action. On Aug. 4, 2008, a consolidated complaint was filed asserting a class period of July 1, 2007 through the present, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of the ERISA relating to Huntington stock being offered as an investment alternative for participants in the Plan and seeking money damages and equitable relief. On Feb. 9, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing with prejudice the consolidated lawsuit in its entirety, and the plaintiffs thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties to the appeal commenced settlement discussions and have reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation on a classwide basis for $1,450,000, subject to the drafting of definitive settlement documentation and court approval. The suit is "Riccio v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00165-GLF-TPK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Gregory L. Frost, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Mark D. Lewis, Esq. Kitrick & Lewis Co LPA 515 E. Main Street, Suite 515 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-224-7711 - and - Jeffrey Phillip Harris, Esq. Statman Harris & Eyrich 441 Vine Street Suite 3700 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4704 Phone: 513-621-2666 - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendants is: Walter C. Carlson, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-853-7000 Fax: 312-853-7036 Huntington Bancshares, Inc. -- https://www.huntington.com/ -- is a multi-state diversified financial holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, reinsurance of private mortgage insurance, reinsurance of credit life and disability insurance, retail and commercial insurance agency services, and other financial products and services. The company has three lines of business: Regional Banking, Dealer Sales, and the Private Financial and Capital Markets Group (PFCMG). A fourth segment, Treasury/Other, includes the company's treasury function. The company's only banking subsidiary is The Huntington National Bank. ICX TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim ICx Technologies is selling itself too cheaply to FLIR Systems, for $7.55 a share, or $274 million, in Delaware Chancery Court. A copy of the Complaint in Sloan v. ICx Technologies, Inc., Case No. 5743 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. Carmella Keener, Esq. P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market St., Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899 E-mail: 302-656-4433 - and - Jason L. Brodsky, Esq. Marc Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 E-mail: 610-667-6200 J&J CHEMICAL: Trail Creek Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Oil Spill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Shearer at OnlineAthens.com reports homeowners who live along Trail Creek have sued J&J Chemical Co. over a chemical spill last month that contaminated the stream. Runoff from a July 28 fire at the plant off Olympic Drive polluted Trail Creek for miles downstream after Athens-Clarke firefighters pumped an estimated 740,000 gallons of water on the flames. The runoff contained high levels of toxic formaldehyde and paradichlorobenzene, along with perfume oils and a brilliant blue dye that colored Trail Creek toilet-bowl blue all the way downstream to its confluence with the North Oconee River in Dudley Park near downtown Athens. The chemicals poisoned more than 15,000 fish, along with turtles, salamanders, insects and other life -- wiping out practically all visible life in the creek, according to state Department of Natural Resources scientists. But the chemicals in Trail Creek also damaged property owners whose land backs up to the creek, according to a class action lawsuit filed in Athens-Clarke County Superior Court on Friday. Annie Jewell Hunter and Margaret Irene Smith, neighbors on West Carver Drive, say the spill has reduced the value of their property, and that they have been denied the use and enjoyment of their land, according to court papers. Their lawsuit asks for unspecified monetary damages. The plaintiffs also may ask the court to issue an injunction against the company "to the extent possible that such relief will abate the continuing nuisances and trespasses created and maintained by the defendant," according to a complaint filed in court by Athens lawyer Eric Krasle. Mr. Krasle represents the property owners along with lawyers John C. Bell Jr. of Atlanta and James A. Dunlap Jr. of Atlanta. More property owners plan to join the class action, Mr. Krasle said. Mr. Krasle filed a similar suit seven years ago when a petroleum spill fouled another Clarke County stream -- Hunnicutt Creek, which flows through Ben Burton Park. Three property owners collected about $50,000 from the owner of a company where a malicious worker pulled a plug on a tank, releasing as much as 4,000 gallons of petroleum waste into Hunnicutt Creek. "I'd really like to see this be a deterrent to the future pollution of the river and the creeks that feed it," said Mr. Krasle, who lives on the Oconee River downstream from Trail Creek. The property owners also hope to get access to records of how state and local governments responded to the spill, and want a say in what state officials require the company to do to clean up the stream, Mr. Krasle said. Some people who live near the stream have reported eye irritation and other health effects from the fumes they say they still smell coming from the creek more than three weeks after the fire. Most of the toxic pollution has flowed downstream or evaporated, but tests as recently as Monday last week revealed that some of the formaldehyde and the benzene product remains in Trail Creek. JACK KITZIS: Displaced Salisbury Tenants Mull Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Angeljean Chiaramida, staff writer at The Daily News in Newburyport, Massachusetts, reports that town officials and displaced tenants from an uninhabitable Ocean Street apartment building will work together to try to bring an irresponsible landlord into compliance, though the landlord has indicated he let the bank holding the mortgage take over the property. Tenants are looking into filing class action civil suits against landlord Jack Kitzis, of Chestnut Hill, a former real estate broker whose license expired in July, according to state records. Selectmen are looking to the legal system as well, searching for a way to bring criminal charges against the landlord. "The town needs to pursue legal action," Selectman Jerry Klima said at a meeting of the two groups on August 16. "The court has powers to fine and put people in jail. This is a serious situation." Since December, the town has tried repeatedly to get the 14 Ocean St. owner to fix scores of safety, health and building codes violations at the five-unit building. Citations were issued, repairs demanded, deadlines given, letters sent and resent, calls made and remade, and fines imposed, but Mr. Kitzis stalled, dragged his feet, and basically turned a deaf ear, officials and tenants said. On Aug. 5, conditions finally got so bad -- the exterior staircase collapsing and a live electrical panel falling off the wall -- town inspectors had to turn off the electricity and tear down the rotting stairs, making the building uninhabitable and forcing the families to leave with little notice. With Mr. Kitzis paying to house his displaced tenants only for a day or two, the families are left hanging with no place to go, they told selectmen. "I never missed a rent check in 14 years. Why am I homeless?" tenant Tina Whitney told selectmen. "What's going to be done? Who's going to relocate us? How many days does (Kitzis) have to fix things? What's his responsibility? Where's Jack Kitzis?" Ms. Whitney's frustrations were echoed by other 14 Ocean St. displaced tenants, as well as those who still live in the abutting Kitzis-owned building at 43 Railroad Ave. Those tenants haven't had hot water for a week because of a problem with the water heater that hasn't been repaired. Mr. Kitzis has not returned numerous calls from The Daily News. According to town tax records, Mr. Kitzis bought both properties in February 2008, paying $650,000 for each. The town assesses the Ocean Street property value at $316,200 and the Railroad Avenue property at $319,600. Town Manager Neil Harrington said Monday it now appears that Mr. Kitzis may walk away from the Ocean Street property and leave it to foreclosure. Mr. Kitzis has told Salisbury Building Inspector David Lovering that unless his insurance company pays for the needed repairs, he will wash his hands of it, Mr. Harrington said. "He'll walk away from the property, and he'll let the bank (holding his mortgage) handle it," Mr. Harrington told the tenants. "The town is trying to find the bank involved to take action. (Kitzis) has simply been completely irresponsible." If Mr. Kitzis sells the Ocean Street building through a short sale or if the bank takes it over, Mr. Harrington is hoping the town can get the new owner or the bank to make the repairs, which may eventually get people back into their homes. Until then, most of the displaced tenants can't come up with the deposits and rents for other apartments since Mr. Kitzis still hasn't given back any of their rents or security deposits. The town will prepare the proper notification for state housing agencies, who can help people find housing temporarily or permanently when they've been officially displaced. And the town will help people get back into their apartments to remove their possessions, some of which police have caught burglars looting. According to the state licensure board, Mr. Kitzis' real estate broker's license expired in July. It was an Ocean Street neighbor, Joseph O'Malley, who finally put the blame issue in perspective on August 16. "These are my neighbors, and they're fine neighbors," Mr. O'Malley said. "There's no one to blame here except Jack Kitzis. The town is in a catch-22 position." KINDER MORGAN: Concludes Discovery in "Going Private" Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Fact and expert discovery in two consolidated suits against Kinder Morgan, Inc., in connection with its going private transaction has been concluded, according to the company's August 10, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Beginning on May 29, 2006, the day after the proposal for the company's Going Private transaction was announced, and in the days following, eight putative Class Action lawsuits were filed in Harris County (Houston), Texas and seven putative Class Action lawsuits were filed in Shawnee County (Topeka), Kansas against, among others, Kinder Morgan, Inc., its Board of Directors, the Special Committee of the Board of Directors, and several corporate officers. Texas Actions By order of the Harris County District Court dated June 26, 2006, each of the eight Harris County cases were consolidated into the Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al case, Cause No. 2006- 33011, in the 164th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, which challenges the proposed transaction as inadequate and unfair to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s public stockholders. On September 8, 2006, interim class counsel filed their Consolidated Petition for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Aiding and Abetting in which they alleged that Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Board of Directors and certain members of senior management breached their fiduciary duties and the Sponsor Investors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering into the merger agreement. They sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger, rescission of the merger agreement, disgorgement of any improper profits received by the defendants, and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed Answers to the Consolidated Petition on October 9, 2006, denying the plaintiffs' substantive allegations and denying that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief. Kansas Actions By order of the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas dated June 26, 2006, each of the seven Kansas cases were consolidated into the Consol. Case No. 06 C 801; In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation; in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12. On August 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated and Amended Class Action Petition in which they alleged that Kinder Morgan's Board of Directors and certain members of senior management breached their fiduciary duties and the Sponsor Investors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering into the merger agreement. They sought, among other things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger agreement and any action taken to effect the acquisition of Kinder Morgan and its assets by the buyout group, damages, disgorgement of any improper profits received by the defendants, and attorney's fees. In late 2006, the Kansas and Texas Courts appointed the Honorable Joseph T. Walsh to serve as Special Master in both consolidated cases "to control all of the pretrial proceedings in both the Kansas and Texas Class Actions arising out of the proposed private offer to purchase the stock of the public shareholders of Kinder Morgan, Inc." On November 21, 2006, the plaintiffs in In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation filed a Third Amended Class Action Petition with Special Master Walsh. This Petition was later filed under seal with the Kansas District Court on December 27, 2006. Following extensive expedited discovery, the Plaintiffs in both consolidated actions filed an application for a preliminary injunction to prevent the holding of a special meeting of shareholders for the purposes of voting on the proposed merger, which was scheduled for December 19, 2006. On December 18, 2006, Special Master Walsh issued a Report and Recommendation concluding, among other things, that "plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the probability of ultimate success on the merits of their claims in this joint litigation." Accordingly, the Special Master concluded that the plaintiffs were "not entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the holding of the special meeting of Kinder Morgan, Inc. shareholders scheduled for December 19, 2006." Plaintiffs moved for class certification in January 2008. In August, September and October 2008, the Plaintiffs in both consolidated cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the claims against those Kinder Morgan, Inc. directors who did not participate in the buyout (including the dismissal of the members of the special committee of the board of directors), Kinder Morgan, Inc. and Knight Acquisition, Inc. In addition, on November 19, 2008, by agreement of the parties, the Texas trial court issued an order staying all proceedings in the Texas actions until such time as a final judgment will be issued in the Kansas actions. The effect of this stay is that the consolidated matters will proceed only in the Kansas trial court. In February 2009, the parties submitted an agreed upon order which has been entered by the Kansas trial court certifying a class consisting of "All holders of Kinder Morgan, Inc. common stock, during the period of August 28, 2006, through May 30, 2007, and their transferees, successors and assigns. Excluded from the class are defendants, members of their immediate families or trusts for the benefit of defendants or their immediate family members, and any majority-owned affiliates of any defendant." The parties agreed that the certification and definition of the above class was subject to revision and without prejudice to defendants' right to seek decertification of the class or modification of the class definition. The parties have concluded fact and expert discovery. In July, 2010 all remaining defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment in their favor on all remaining claims in the consolidated cases. Plaintiffs are scheduled to respond to such motions in August 2010, and oral argument on such motions is scheduled for October 2010. Kinder Morgan, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is one of the largest energy transportation and storage companies in North America. Kinder Morgan, Inc. owns the general partner and significant limited partner interests in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (NYSE: KMP), one of the largest publicly traded pipeline limited partnerships in the United States with an enterprise value in excess of $20 billion. The company operates or owns an interest in more than 35,000 miles of pipelines that transport products such as natural gas, gasoline, crude oil and CO2, and over 170 terminals that store petroleum products and chemicals and handle bulk materials like coal and petroleum coke. The company has both regulated and non-regulated operations. KKR FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- KKR Financial Holdings LLC's motion to dismiss an amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On Aug. 7, 2008, the members of the company's board of directors and certain of its current and former executive officers and the company were named in a putative class action complaint filed by Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 13, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which deleted as defendants the members of the company's board of directors and named as defendants only the company's former chief executive officer Saturnino S. Fanlo, former chief operating officer David A. Netjes, current chief financial officer Jeffrey B. Van Horn and the company. The amended complaint alleges that our April 2, 2007, registration statement and prospectus and the financial statements incorporated therein contained material omissions in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, regarding the risks and potential losses associated with the company's real estate-related assets, the company's ability to finance our real estate-related assets and the adequacy of the company's loss reserves for its real estate- related assets. The amended complaint further alleges that, pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act, Messrs. Fanlo, Netjes and Van Horn each have legal responsibility for the alleged Section 11 violation. On April 27, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Securities Act. Oral argument on the defendants' motion to dismiss was scheduled for July 7, 2010, but was postponed as the judge overseeing the case took medical leave. To date, oral argument has not been rescheduled. KKR Financial Holdings LLC is a publicly traded specialty finance company with expertise in a range of asset classes. KKR Financial Holdings LLC is externally managed by KKR Financial Advisors LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (Fixed Income) LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. KKR Financial Holdings LLC executes its core business strategy through majority- owned subsidiaries. LOJACK CORP: Continues Defense vs. Employee Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Lojack Corporation continues to face state law claims for compensation in a class action complaint filed in California, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010. The California District Court lawsuit was filed on April 5, 2006, by an employee against LoJack alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code, and seeking class action status. The plaintiff contended that the company improperly credited break time and overtime pay and seeks unspecified monetary and injunctive relief. In September 2007, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's federal law claims, which represented the largest part of the company's potential exposure. The plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision and on Feb. 4, 2009, the case was argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Aug. 21, 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment except as to the claim for compensation for the required postliminary data transmission, which was vacated. The plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing to the Ninth Circuit and on March 2, 2010 the Ninth Circuit rendered its decision, affirming district court's grant of summary judgment except as to (i) the claim for compensation for commuting under state law and (ii) the required postliminary data transmission, which were vacated. State Claims Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in federal court, in November 2007, the plaintiff also filed state law claims in California State Court. In January 2008, the company removed the state law claims to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to California State Court and that motion was subsequently granted. The plaintiff's motion for class certification and the company's motion for summary judgment and opposition to class certification were heard on April 16, 2009. In June 2009, the California State Court granted the plaintiff's claims for class certification with respect to nine claims and denied certification with respect to the five claims. The company appealed the decision. On March 26, 2010, the California State Appellate Court granted the company's appeal in part, denying certification with respect to six claims and affirming certification with respect to three claims, including missed meals and rest breaks. LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global provider of technology products and services for the tracking and recovery of stolen mobile assets. LoJack's integration with law enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles, motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang. Under the domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles, construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous materials. Through the international segment, its licensed stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries and territories worldwide. Revenue from the Boomerang segment is derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and BoomerangXpress Units. In April 2008, it acquired the assets of LSC Locator Systems Corp. LOJACK CORP: Seeks Removal of Lawsuit to California District Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit was commenced on June 15, 2010, against LoJack Corporation in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California (Central District) alleging, amongst other claims, violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Business and Professions Code Section for unfair competition and Section 17500 for false advertising, and breach of implied warranty with respect to LoJack Early Warning for motorcycles, and seeking class action status. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, interest and attorneys' fees, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010. On July 29, 2010, LoJack Corporation filed a notice of removal seeking to remove the case to the United States District Court for the Central District Court of California. LoJack Corporation -- http://www.lojack.com/-- is a global provider of technology products and services for the tracking and recovery of stolen mobile assets. LoJack's integration with law enforcement agencies, its technology and wireless network provide a means for the tracking and recovery of stolen vehicles, motorcycles and construction equipment. LoJack operates through three segments: domestic, international and Boomerang. Under the domestic segment, LoJack develops and markets a variety of products designed to track and recover stolen vehicles, construction equipment, motorcycles, cargo and hazardous materials. Through the international segment, its licensed stolen vehicle recovery technology is operational in 32 countries and territories worldwide. Revenue from the Boomerang segment is derived primarily from the sale and installation of Boomerang Espion, Boomerang Espion Alert, Boomerang, Boomerang2 and BoomerangXpress Units. In April 2008, it acquired the assets of LSC Locator Systems Corp. MASSEY ENERGY: Motion to Consolidate Two Suits Pending in Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------ Two purported class actions have been commenced against Massey Energy Corporation in connection with alleged violations of the Federal securities laws pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, according to the company's August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010. On April 29, 2010, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System filed a purported class action, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by certain Massey officers and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by these same officers, as well as certain current and former directors in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements regarding Massey's safety record. Macomb seeks (1) an award of damages to Macomb and the members of the purported class, and (2) an award to Macomb of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On May 28, 2010, the Firefighters' Retirement System of Louisiana brought a purported class action, alleging substantially similar violations as Macomb, against the same defendants, as well as another director and officer. Firefighters seeks (1) an award of damages to Firefighters and the members of the purported class, and (2) an award to Firefighters of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. On June 28, 2010, four purported class members -- the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust, the MEE Investor Group, David Wagner and the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System -- filed separate motions requesting that the court consolidate the Macomb and Firefighters Actions, appoint each purported class member as lead plaintiff and approve each purported class member's choice of lead counsel. The MEE Investor Group subsequently withdrew its motion. The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System subsequently filed notice stating that it supported the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust's motion, and the court thereafter denied the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System's motion as moot. David Wagner's and the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust's Motions for Consolidation are pending before the court. Massey Energy Company -- http://www.masseyenergyco.com/-- is a coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia. MASSEY ENERGY: Units Still Awaiting Ruling on Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Massey Energy Company disclosed in its August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010, that there has been no decision yet on a motion for class certification relating to a consolidated class action filed against its subsidiaries in West Virginia. Since January 2003, an advocacy group and residents in Boone, Kanawha, Mingo and Raleigh Counties, West Virginia, filed 17 suits in the Circuit Courts of Kanawha and Mingo Counties, West Virginia, against 12 of Massey Energy's subsidiaries. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants illegally transported coal in overloaded trucks, causing damage to state roads, thereby interfering with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties and their right to use the public roads. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia referred the consolidated lawsuits, and similar lawsuits against other coal and transportation companies not involving Massey Energy's subsidiaries, to the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, to be handled by a mass litigation panel judge. Plaintiffs filed motions requesting class certification. On June 7, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their public nuisance claims seeking monetary damages for road and bridge repairs. Plaintiffs also agreed to an order limiting any damages for nuisance to two years prior to the filing of any suit. A motion to dismiss any remaining public nuisance claims was resisted by plaintiffs and argued at hearings on December 14, 2007 and June 25, 2008. No rulings on these matters have been made. Defendants filed a motion requesting that the mass litigation panel judge recommend to the WV Supreme Court that the cases be sent back to the circuit courts of origin for resolution. That motion was verbally denied as to those cases in which the Company's subsidiaries are defendants, and a class certification hearing was held on October 21, 2009. As of August 9, 2010, no decision has been rendered by the Circuit Court on the class certification issues. No date has been set for trial. Massey Energy believes it has insurance coverage applicable to these items and that they will be resolved without a material adverse impact on its cash flows, results of operations or financial condition. Massey Energy Company -- http://www.masseyenergyco.com/-- is a coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia. MASSEY ENERGY: Spartan Appeal Pending in 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------- Massey Energy Company disclosed in its August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2010, that there has been no development in its subsidiary's appeal relating to an unfair labor practice matter and related age discrimination class action. In 2005, the United Mine Workers of America filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that one of Massey Energy Company's subsidiaries, Spartan Mining Company, discriminated on the basis of anti-union animus in its employment offers. The NLRB issued a complaint and an NLRB Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended decision making detailed findings that Spartan committed a number of unfair labor practice violations and awarding, among other relief, back pay damages to union discriminatees. On September 30, 2009, the NLRB upheld the ALJ's recommended decision. Spartan has appealed the NLRB's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Massey Energy said it has no insurance coverage applicable to this unfair labor practice matter; however, its resolution is not expected to have a material impact on its cash flows, results of operations or financial condition. Massey Energy Company -- http://www.masseyenergyco.com/-- is a coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia. MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Agrees to Settle Suits Over Zicam Cold Remedy ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Matrixx Initiatives has agreed to settle lawsuits over its Zicam cold remedy, the company said Friday, which it withdrew from the market in June following a safety warning from federal regulators. In June, the Food and Drug Administration told consumers should stop using Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel and related products because they can permanently damage the sense of smell. Under the proposed settlement, the company agreed to add potential side effect warnings if the products return to the market. There are 18 class action lawsuits outstanding in federal courts. The company would be required to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs for the litigation, as determined by the court. Matrixx would also pay incentive awards to the named plaintiffs in an aggregate amount not to exceed a total of $35,000 and be responsible for the costs of providing notice of the settlement. Matrixx, based in Phoenix, would acknowledge no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The company said it will better be able to manage hundreds of product liability claims for personal injuries that are still pending. MCAFEE INC: Being Sold to Intel for Too Little, Calif. Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim McAfee is selling itself too cheaply to Intel through "an unfair and self- serving process," in Santa Clara County Court. Intel on Thursday said it would buy McAfee for $7.7 billion or $48 a share -- a 60 premium over the $29.93 at which McAfee closed Wednesday. A copy of the Complaint in Greenberg v. McAfee, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-10-CV-180413 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/20/McAfee.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc M. Umeda, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Arshan Amiri, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B St., Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-525-3990 - and - Mark C. Gardy, Esq. James S. Notis, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 560 Sylvan Ave. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: 201-567-7377 MEDQUIST INC: NJ Appellate Division Affirms "Kahn" Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey Appellate Division has affirmed the Superior Court of New Jersey's decision dismissing an amended class action complaint filed by Alan R. Kahn against Medquist, Inc., and two of its directors, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On January 22, 2008, Alan R. Kahn, one of the company's shareholders, filed a shareholder putative class action lawsuit against the company, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., the company's former majority shareholder, and four of the company's former non-independent directors, Clement Revetti, Jr., Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory M. Sebasky and Scott Weisenhoff. The action, entitled Alan R. Kahn v. Stephen H. Rusckowski, et al., Docket No. BUR-C-000007-08, was venued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington County. In the action, plaintiff purports to bring the action on his own behalf and on behalf of all current holders of our common stock. The original complaint alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and due care by purportedly agreeing to and initiating a process for the company's sale or a change of control transaction which will allegedly cause harm to plaintiff and members of the putative class. Plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified amount, plus costs and interest, a judgment declaring that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and that any proposed transactions regarding the company's sale or change of control are void, an injunction preventing our sale or any change of control transaction that is not entirely fair to the class, an order directing us to appoint three independent directors to our board of directors, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 12, 2008, plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint against the company, eight of its then current and former directors, and Philips in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division. In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that the company's then current and former directors breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and due care by not providing its public shareholders with the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to participate in a share purchase offer with non-party CBaySystems Holdings Ltd. (CBaySystems Holdings) that would have allowed the public shareholders to sell their shares of our common stock for an amount above market price. Plaintiff further alleged that CBaySystems Holdings made the share purchase offer to Philips and that Philips breached its fiduciary duties by accepting CBaySystems Holdings' offer. Based on these allegations, plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief from all defendants. Plaintiff claimed that we were only named as a party to the litigation for purposes of injunctive relief. On July 14, 2008, the company moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended class action complaint, arguing: (1) that plaintiff's amended class action complaint did not allege that the company engaged in any wrongdoing which supported a breach of fiduciary duty claim; and (2) that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is not legally cognizable against a corporation. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on July 21, 2008. On November 21, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion and the motions filed by the other defendants and dismissed plaintiff's amended class action complaint with prejudice. On December 31, 2008, plaintiff filed an appeal of the trial court's dismissal order with the New Jersey Appellate Division. Thereafter, the parties briefed all the issues raised in plaintiff's appeal. In the company's opposition brief, it opposed all the arguments plaintiff raised with respect to the dismissal of the claims against it. On September 24, 2009, the Appellate Division held oral argument on plaintiff's appeal. On July 1, 2010, the Appellate Division entered an Order and Opinion that affirmed the dismissal of the claims against MedQuist and two of the MedQuist director defendants, Mr. Edward Siegel and Warren E. Pinckert II. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the claims against the remaining defendants -- Philips and certain of the company's former directors -- and remanded those claims back to the Chancery Division. As a result of the Appellate Division's July 1, 2010 Order and Opinion, the company is no longer a defendant in this matter. MedQuist, Inc. -- http://www.medquist.com/-- is a leading provider of medical transcription services, and a leader in technology-enabled clinical documentation workflow. MedQuist's enterprise solutions -- including mobile voice capture devices, speech recognition, Web-based workflow platforms, and global network of medical editors -- help healthcare facilities improve patient care, increase physician satisfaction, and lower operational costs. MGIC INVESTMENT: Motion Opposing Plea to Amend Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- MGIC Investment Corp.'s motion in opposition to a plaintiff's motion for leave to amend a class action complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed against the company and several of its executive officers were consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees' Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 22, 2009. Due in part to its length and structure, the company says it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that the company and its officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about (i) loss development in the company's insurance in force, and (ii) C-BASS, including its liquidity. The company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted on February 18, 2010. On March 18, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Attached to the motion was a proposed Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that the company and two of its officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly account for our investment in C-BASS. The Amended Complaint also names two officers of C-BASS with respect to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS. The purported class period covered by the Complaint begins on February 6, 2007 and ends on August 13, 2007. The Amended Complaint seeks damages based on purchases of the company's stock during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws. On April 12, 2010, the company filed a motion in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint. With limited exceptions, the company's bylaws provide that its officers are entitled to indemnification from it for claims against them of the type alleged in the Amended Complaint. MGIC Investment Corporation (NYSE: MTG) -- http://mtg.mgic.com/ -- is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is the parent company of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC). It offers mortgage insurance, and risk management products and services to mortgage lenders as well as structured finance services to investors. MRV COMMS: Court to Consider Final OK of $10MM Settlement in Nov. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MRV Communications, Inc., settled securities class action lawsuits filed in California for $10 million and a federal court will consider final approval of the settlement in November, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. From June to August 2008, five purported stockholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California and one derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The five lawsuits filed in the Central District of California were consolidated. Claims are asserted under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations set forth in the complaints are based on facts disclosed in the company's press release of June 5, 2008, which stated that the Company's financial statements could not be relied on due to the Company's historical stock option practices and related accounting. The complaints seek to recover from the defendants unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, to require the Company to undertake reforms to corporate governance and internal control procedures, to obtain an accounting of stock option grants found to be improper, to impose a constructive trust over stock options and proceeds derived therefrom, to disgorge from any of the defendants who received allegedly improper stock options the profits obtained therefrom, to rescind improperly priced options and to recover costs of suit, including legal and other professional fees and other equitable relief. In April 2010, the parties to the securities class action lawsuits filed a stipulation and agreement of settlement of $10 million with the court which was preliminarily approved. The settlement amount was covered by the company's director and officer insurance policies pending final approval by the court in November 2010. The Company and plaintiffs in the federal and California state derivative lawsuits have attended mediations but have not been successful in reaching a settlement of these claims. Motions to dismiss the defendants in both the federal and state derivative lawsuits are currently pending in those courts. MRV Communications, Inc. -- http://www.mrv.com/-- is a supplier of communications equipment and services to carriers, governments and enterprise customers, worldwide. The company is a supplier of optical components, primarily through its wholly owned subsidiaries: Source Photonics and Fiberxon. The company conducts its business along three principal segments: the network equipment group, the network integration group and the optical components group. NETCO INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit to Be Heard Friday ---------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports a company facing a class action suit over allegedly overcharged recording and courier charges is asking that the case be thrown out. Defendant Netco Inc. is also asking that a move for class certification filed by lead plaintiffs Kerry and Sheila Tormino be stayed. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack is set to hear the dismissal plea Aug. 27 at 9 a.m. The Torminos filed suit in 2004 alleging Netco is guilty of violations of the state's consumer fraud statute, breach of contract and other claims. They claim that Netco overcharged them and other customers to record mortgages and to send loan documents and payment by courier. They claim the defendant charged them $70 to record a mortgage, for example, when it cost the company $26 to do so. Netco then allegedly kept the difference. The plaintiffs filed for class certification in June. They ask the court to approve a class of parties who went through the defendant to conduct closings on real estate transactions. That issue is currently set for hearing in October. The defendant, in its motion to dismiss the suit, argues that Netco complied with the disclosure requirements set down in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and that Netco did not breach its contract with the Torminos or anyone else. It also disputes the claims by the Torminos that it did anything improper by retaining the fee difference. The motion to dismiss was filed May 25. Netco's motion to stay the class certification hearing is based on both a prior stay in the case and its motion to dismiss it. The Tormino case had been stayed pending the outcome of a St. Clair County case, Frailey vs. Netco Inc. since 2004. The stay was lifted in December of last year. Netco argues that the court must first deal with its dismissal motion before it can determine whether a class should be certified in the case at all. "If this Court grants Netco's motion, then neither this Court nor the parties will be required to expend any additional time and resources in addressing the plaintiff's motion for class certification," the motion reads. "This is especially important for Netco, whose resources have been severely reduced as a result of the collapse of the real estate market." Netco asked for the stay shortly after the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Torminos are represented by Phillip Bock. Netco is represented by Edward Bott. Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder formerly oversaw the case. The case is Madison case number 04-L-238. ORIENT PAPER: Rosen Firm Reminds Investors of Oct. 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the October 5, 2010, lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased common stock of Orient Paper, Inc. during the period between March 27, 2009 and July 22, 2010. This class action includes all purchasers of Orient Paper stock during the Class Period, including purchasers in the March 31, 2010 public offering from Roth Capital Partners LLC. To join the Orient Paper class action, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/, or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or pkim@rosenlegal.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. The Complaint asserts that the Company's revenues were materially overstated and that the Company exaggerated the extent of its business operations. On June 28, 2010, an entity calling itself Muddy Waters released a report containing facts indicating that ONP has issued false financial statements and press releases. The report was followed by a series of back-and-forth accusations between Muddy Waters and the Company. Finally, on July 16, 2010, Orient Paper announced that it would retain a law firm and a "Big Four" accounting firm to conduct an investigation into the troubling issues raised by Muddy Waters. As a result of these adverse disclosures, Orient Paper's share price dropped substantially, damaging shareholders. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 5, 2010. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or pkim@rosenlegal.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. The firm can be reached at: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, New York 10118 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com PACIFIC CAPITAL: Ninth Circuit Dismisses Paskowitz's Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on July 23, 2010, an appeal of an order dismissing a purported shareholder action asserted against Pacific Capital Bancorp in California, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On September 4, 2009, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a purported shareholder action in federal district court in Los Angeles, against the Company and all of its directors, captioned Laurence Paskowitz SEP IRA v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 09-6449-ODW. The complaint alleged that the Company's August 31, 2009 Proxy Statement, with respect to the proposal for shareholder authorization of a reverse stock split, contained certain allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding certain alleged risks of the reverse stock split. The complaint asserted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief based on alleged proxy violations under the federal securities laws and under unspecified California law. The complaint also asserted a purported class action claim, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of the Company, for monetary damages based on alleged breach of an alleged fiduciary duty of full disclosure under California law. On September 9, 2009, plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking a temporary restraining order, as well as an expedited hearing on a preliminary injunction motion, to prevent the Company from conducting the planned shareholder vote on the reverse stock split proposal set for September 29, 2009. On September 11, 2009, the defendants filed an opposition to the ex parte application. On September 14, 2009 the Court denied plaintiff's application in its entirety. The scheduled shareholder vote took place on September 29, 2009, and the reverse stock split proposal was approved. On October 8, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to amend. On October 19, 2009, plaintiff filed opposition papers, and on October 26, 2009, defendants filed reply papers. On November 6, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiff declined to amend the complaint. On December 6, 2009, the Court ordered Judgment be entered dismissing the complaint with prejudice. On December 31, 2009, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff decided to abandon the appeal, and the parties stipulated to a dismissal. By order dated July 23, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The case is fully and finally concluded. About Pacific Capital Bancorp Pacific Capital Bancorp is the parent company of Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., a nationally chartered bank that operates 48 branches under the local brand names of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First National Bank of Central California, South Valley National Bank, San Benito Bank and First Bank of San Luis Obispo. PIPER JAFFRAY: Remains a Defendant in Securities Violation Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Piper Jaffray Companies remains a defendant in certain class actions alleging violations of securities laws. The company has been named as a defendant in various legal actions, including complaints and litigation and arbitration claims, arising from its business activities. Such actions include claims related to securities brokerage and investment banking activities, and certain class actions that primarily allege violations of securities laws and seek unspecified damages, which could be substantial. No additional information regarding the cases were disclosed in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Piper Jaffray Companies -- http://www.piperjaffray.com/-- is an international investment bank and institutional securities firm, serving the needs of corporations, private equity groups, public entities, non-profit clients and institutional investors. It provides a set of products and services, including equity and debt capital markets products, public finance services, financial advisory services, equity and fixed income institutional brokerage, equity and fixed income research, and asset management services. The company markets the investment banking and institutional securities business under Piper Jaffray name. It markets the primary asset management business under the name of FAMCO, which is derived from Fiduciary Asset Management, LLC. The company operates in four business segments: investment banking, equity and fixed income institutional brokerage, asset management, and other income. In March 2010, the company acquired Advisory Research, Inc., an asset management firm focused in equity strategies. PRICELINE.COM INC: Settlement Agreement Signed in Monroe Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties to the lawsuit captioned County of Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com, Inc. et al., have signed a settlement agreement resolving the claims asserted by the remaining class members in the action, according to priceline.com Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective state against the company and other defendants, including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are subsidiaries of the company. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each ordinance. Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. On Jan. 12, 2009, the County filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In addition to claims with respect to the application of the Tourist Development Tax, the complaint also asserted claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and injunctive relief. On March 30, 2009, the Court dismissed the action because a scheduling report had not been submitted to the Court. Thereafter, on April 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed another complaint making the same substantive allegations made in its previous complaint. On April 24, 2009, defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted in part, and denied in part, defendants' motion to dismiss on Dec. 17, 2009 by dismissing the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief. On Dec. 31, 2009, the defendants answered the amended complaint. On Jan. 4, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Defendants filed an opposition to class certification on Jan. 14, 2010; and plaintiff's reply was filed on Jan. 22, 2010. The court granted class certification on March 15, 2010. The opt-out period expired on May 24, 2010. As of the opt-out date, these counties opted-out of the Monroe class action: Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Escambia, Flagler, Gulf, Hillsborough, Lee, Leon, Manatee, Marion, Nassau, Okaloosa, Orange, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, St. Johns, Seminole, Volusia, Wakulla and Walton. The parties each filed motions for summary judgment on May 21, 2010. The parties to the lawsuit have signed a settlement agreement resolving the claims asserted by the remaining class members in the action. As part of the agreement, the remaining class members have agreed to not assert claims based on the tourist development tax ordinances at issue in the action for a period of three years. The parties provided the court with a proposed class settlement on Aug. 2, 2010. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suit by Lawrence County -------------------------------------------------------------- priceline.com Inc. continues to defend an amended complaint filed by the County of Lawrence in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective state against the company and other defendants, including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are subsidiaries of the company. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each ordinance. Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. On Sept. 9, 2009, the County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania styled County of Lawrence v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. On Nov. 17, 2009, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the federal case, but subsequently filed another complaint, on Nov. 20, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory and monetary damages relief, as well as alleging violations of the Pennsylvania hotel occupancy tax code, conversion and unjust enrichment. The defendants' response to the complaint is due March 9, 2010. Defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint on March 9, 2010. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2010. Defendants filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint on April 15, 2010 and a brief in support on July 22, 2010. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in "Genesee" Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ The parties in the matter County of Genesee, Mich., et al. v. Hotels.com LP, et al., are still in the process of conducting discovery. A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective state against the company and other defendants, including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are subsidiaries of the company. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each ordinance. Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. On Aug. 31, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On Sept. 21, 2009, defendants answered the complaint. No further updates were reported in priceline.com Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. PRICELINE.COM INC: Motion to Dismiss Pine Bluff's Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- priceline.com Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, AR, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al., remains pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective state against the company and other defendants, including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are subsidiaries of the company. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each ordinance. Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. On Sept. 30, 2009, plaintiffs served the complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 4, 2009. On Jan. 19, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion based on plaintiffs' failure to timely file an opposition. The plaintiff thereafter filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Jan. 22, 2010, and requested that the court reconsider its dismissal of the action. The court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider on Feb. 19, 2010, and the motion to dismiss is currently pending. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Nassau Suit Conducting Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the matter styled County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al., are currently conducting discovery specific to class certification issues. A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective state against the company and other defendants, including, among others, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are subsidiaries of the company. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each ordinance. Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. On Aug. 17, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for the County of Nassau's failure to exhaust its mandatory administrative procedures for tax collection. On Sept. 12, 2007, the County of Nassau filed a notice of appeal of that order. On Aug. 11, 2009, the Second Circuit vacated the lower court's order dismissing the complaint, and remanded with instructions to consider whether the complaint meets specified jurisdictional requirements. On Sept. 10, 2009, the Second Circuit denied the defendants' petition for rehearing. The parties are currently conducting discovery specific to class certification issues. No further updates were reported in priceline.com Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal of "Marshall" Plaintiffs Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the granting of summary judgment in favor of priceline.com Inc., in the matter Marshall, et al. v. priceline.com, Inc., remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware for New Castle County by Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals on behalf of themselves and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated consumers nationwide against the company. The complaint alleged that the company violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Section 2511, et seq., relating to the company's disclosures and charges to customers to cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances nationwide, and service fees. The company moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2005. On June 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that asserts claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. On Oct. 31, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed all claims arising under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. The court also dismissed all claims for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing that relate to our charges for service fees. The court denied the company's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims as they relate to the charges to consumers to cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances. On Feb. 1, 2008, two of the four plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the company. On Feb. 29, 2008, the remaining plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to assert additional claims for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing alleging that the company included a hidden fee within the room rate charge. On Aug. 28, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on Sept. 12, 2008, and the company answered that complaint on Sept. 26, 2008. The parties' summary judgment motions have been submitted and a hearing was held in January 2009. The court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiff's competing motion for summary judgment, on March 8, 2010. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on April 6, 2010. The parties completed appellate briefing submissions to the Delaware Supreme Court on July 12, 2010 and are awaiting an argument date. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. PRICELINE.COM INC: Motion to Dismiss "Chiste" Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- priceline.com Inc.'s motion to dismiss the suit styled Chiste, et al. v. priceline.com Inc., et al., remains pending. On December 11, 2008, a putative class action was filed by plaintiff Matthew R. Chiste and two other individuals on behalf of themselves and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated consumers nationwide against the company, Lowestfare.com, Inc. and Travelweb, LLC. The complaint alleges the defendants overcharge consumers by collecting Hotel Occupancy and sales taxes over and above that necessary to pay the actual taxes on the hotel room reserved by the customer. The complaint asserts claims for deceptive business practices, declaratory and injunctive relief, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on March 6, 2009. Briefing was completed on July 3, 2009. The parties are awaiting the court's decision. No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Walsh Files Voluntary Dismissal of Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Patricia Walsh has filed a voluntary dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit against Principal Life Insurance Company and Princor Financial Services Corporation, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On Aug. 28, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Patricia Walsh -- and another plaintiff, who subsequently withdrew -- in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Principal Life and Princor Financial Services Corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached alleged fiduciary duties to participants in employer-sponsored 401(k) plans who were retiring or leaving their respective plans, including providing misleading information and failing to act solely in the interests of the participants, resulting in alleged violations of ERISA. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied on March 24, 2010. On July 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/-- is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance products and services. PFG's United States and international operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management. In addition, it offers a range of individual and group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance. PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their employees. PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Defends Property Account Litigation in Iowa ---------------------------------------------------------------- Principal Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend the matter In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On Dec. 2, 2009 and Dec. 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Global Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC. The lawsuits alleged the defendants failed to manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account (PUSPSA) in the best interests of investors, improperly imposed a withdrawal freeze on Sept. 26, 2008, and instituted a withdrawal queue to honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became available. Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute a breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class including all qualified ERISA plans and the participants of those plans that invested in PUSPSA between Sept. 26, 2008, and the present that have suffered losses caused by the queue. The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation. On April 22, 2010, an order was entered granting the motion made by the defendants for change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/-- provides retirement savings, investment and insurance products and services. PFG's United States and international operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management. In addition, it offers a range of individual and group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance. PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their employees. PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Hurd" Suit in Southern Iowa ------------------------------------------------------- Principal Financial Group, Inc., faces a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On July 1, 2010, Debra and Russell Hurd filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company and Principal Life. The complaint alleges the Defendants underpay out-of-network health claims by using an allegedly flawed database to calculate usual and customary charges. Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of "all participants and/or beneficiaries in group health plans in the United States issued, insured or administered by [us] as to which [we] have administered claims and/or paid or denied benefits for out-of-network benefit claims." The complaint alleges four causes of action, all based on violations of ERISA. Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/-- is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance products and services. PFG's United States and international operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management. In addition, it offers a range of individual and group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance. PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their employees. PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance. REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The class-actions lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds and shareholders of Regions Financial Corp. remain pending. Regions and certain of its affiliates have been named in class- action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds and shareholders of Regions. The Funds were formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management, Inc. Morgan Asset Management no longer manages these Funds, which were transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management in 2008. Certain of the funds have since been terminated by Hyperion. The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the Funds. No class has been certified. No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a financial holding company that operates throughout the South, Midwest and Texas. The company provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial services in the fields of investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty financing. REGIONS FIN'L: S.D.N.Y. Ct. Dismisses Suit by Securities Buyers --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed all claims against Regions Financial Corp. in a purported class action suit, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. In April 2009, Regions, Regions Financing Trust III and certain of Regions' current and former directors, were named in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the purchasers of trust preferred securities offered by the Trust. The complaint alleges that defendants made statements in Regions' registration statement, prospectus and year-end filings which were materially false and misleading. On May 10, 2010, the trial court dismissed all claims against all defendants in this case. However the plaintiffs have appealed the decision. Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a financial holding company that operates throughout the South, Midwest and Texas. The company provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial services in the fields of investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty financing. REGIONS FIN'L: Remains a Defendant in Suit Over Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class- action lawsuit challenging the manner in which non-sufficient funds (NSF) and overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to posting order, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The suit was filed in September 2009 by customers of Regions Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The case was transferred to multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and in May 2010 an order to compel arbitration was denied. No class has been certified. Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a financial holding company that operates throughout the South, Midwest and Texas. The company provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial services in the fields of investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty financing. SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- glassBYTEs.com reports that two former and one current Safelite Solutions customer service representatives have filed a class action suit against the company and its parent company, Safelite, alleging that the company failed to compensate them with overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours per week. According to court documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Patrick W. Heaps, Joshua Pursley and Richard Ruppert allege that the company requires its CSRs to start their shifts each day by booting up their computer systems, but then omit the time it takes the CSR to boot up the system from its calculation of the hours the CSRs have worked each week. They also allege that the company "fail[s] to maintain records of all the hours so worked by those representatives." Mr. Heaps worked as a CSR for Safelite Solutions from July 2008, to July 2009, while Mr. Ruppert was employed by the company from December 2007 to March 2010. Mr. Pursley has worked there since April 2008. All three allege that though they regularly work (or worked) more than 40 hours a week when the time spent booting up their systems is (or was) included, they have not received overtime pay for the additional time spent launching their systems. The three say that the process of "booting up" to which they refer includes starting their computers, typing in their user names and passwords, opening the relevant computer programs needed, connecting to the main system and completing other administrative tasks necessary to prepare to answer calls, according to the August 13 complaint. The plaintiffs allege this process takes approximately four minutes today currently, though at one time it took up to six minutes, and that Safelite Solutions has "substantially controlled the length of time booting up takes." Likewise, Messrs. Heaps, Ruppert and Pursley claim that the company "characterizes the start of a [CSR's] work shift as the first minute the representative is fully booted up and ready to receive calls, even though the [CSR] actually started the shift by arriving at work and beginning the booting-up process." They go on to allege that the company's security and computer systems "could easily and accurately record the actual time CSRs arrive for work and begin the process of booting up." CSRs are paid hourly and thus, the employees argue not being paid for overtime for this time violates the Fair Labor and Standards Act and/or the Ohio Wage Act, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs claim the class includes all current or former CSRs employed during the past three years by Safelite Solutions "who, when the time at the start of each scheduled shift they spent booting up is included, worked more than 40 hours a week and were compensated for such overtime work at an amount equaling less than one and one-half times the CSR's regular rate of pay based on a 40-hour workweek." The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages "in an amount equal to the difference between the time-and-a-half payments required," liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, and an injunction prohibiting further alleged overtime violations. Safelite spokesperson Jenny Cain says the company currently is investigating the allegations. "We're conducting an investigation and cannot comment at this time," she told glassBYTEs.com and AGRR magazine. A similar suit alleging overtime pay violations for CSRs was filed recently against State Farm in a Missouri District court. SOLTA MEDICAL: Reliant Subsidiary Defends Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Solta Medical Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Reliant Technologies, LLC, defends a complaint in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. On Dec. 21, 2009, a complaint was filed by three former stockholders of Reliant Technologies, Inc. against Reliant and certain former officers and directors of Reliant in connection with the company's acquisition of Reliant, which closed on Dec. 23, 2008. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of the former common stockholders of Reliant. As a result of the acquisition, a successor entity to Reliant, Reliant Technologies, LLC, became the company's wholly-owned subsidiary. Two of the company's Board of Directors are among the defendants named in the complaint, and one of the two is also the company's Chief Technology Officer. The principal claim, among others, is that Reliant violated the California Corporations Code by failing to obtain the vote from a majority of holders of Reliant's common stock prior to the consummation of the acquisition. The complaint also purports to challenge disclosures made by Reliant in connection with its entry into the acquisition and that the defendants failed to maximize the value of Reliant for the benefits of Reliant's common stockholders. No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Solta Medical Inc., formerly Thermage, Inc. -- http://www.solta.com/-- is engaged in designing, developing, manufacturing and marketing energy-based medical device systems for aesthetic applications. These systems are marketed under the brand names Fraxel and Thermage and are Food & Drug Administration cleared for dermatological procedures in the applications, which include: Skin Tightening, the Thermage NXT system offers non- invasive treatment options for skin tightening and contouring, body shaping, and improvement in the appearance of cellulite; Skin Rejuvenation, the Fraxel re:fine and Fraxel re:store systems offer treatments for skin conditions such as fine lines and pigmentation. In March 2010, the company announced the completion of its acquisition of Aesthera Corporation. SOLTA MEDICAL: Inks Agreement to Settle TCPA-Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Solta Medical Inc., has reached an agreement in principle to settle a class action complaint Aesthera Corp. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Solta Medical completed its acquisition of Aesthera on Feb. 26, 2010. On Dec. 4, 2009, Aesthera was served with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that Aesthera caused unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent to the plaintiffs in violation of the TCPA and Connecticut state law. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class, and it alleges that Aesthera caused unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent from Aug. 1, 2006 through the present. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the TCPA and Connecticut state law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and an injunction to prevent any future violations. In May 2010, the company reached agreement in principle to settle the matter. The Court stayed discovery until Nov. 1, 2010 so that preliminary agreement of a class settlement could be submitted and a fairness hearing held to determine whether final approval of the settlement would be appropriate. Solta Medical Inc., formerly Thermage, Inc. -- http://www.solta.com/-- is engaged in designing, developing, manufacturing and marketing energy-based medical device systems for aesthetic applications. These systems are marketed under the brand names Fraxel and Thermage and are Food & Drug Administration cleared for dermatological procedures in the applications, which include: Skin Tightening, the Thermage NXT system offers non- invasive treatment options for skin tightening and contouring, body shaping, and improvement in the appearance of cellulite; Skin Rejuvenation, the Fraxel re:fine and Fraxel re:store systems offer treatments for skin conditions such as fine lines and pigmentation. In March 2010, the company announced the completion of its acquisition of Aesthera Corporation. SPRINT NEXTEL: Accused of Breaching Manufacturer's Warranty ----------------------------------------------------------- Kandance Clark, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Case No. 10-cv-03625 (N.D. Calif. August 17, 2010), accuses the telecommunications company of "routinely" rejecting claims for repairs covered under its warranty and service plans on the pretext that her cellular phone suffered water damage (based on the rejection sticker in the cellular phone changing color), without first ascertaining that there was in fact actual water exposure, and requiring those holding insurance policies to pay a deductible ($50 dollars or $100, depending on the cellular device) before they can obtain a replacement. Ms. Clark says that by failing to state in clear and conspicuous language the reasons for which it will deny coverage, and for denying coverage for a reason not previously disclosed, Sprint is engaged in deceptive acts and practices prohibited by the California Business and Professions Code. Ms. Clark relates that in 2009, she acquired a Sprint cellular telephone and began paying Sprint for an Equipment Service & Repair Program and an insurance policy (which Sprint calls an Equipment Replacement Program. Ms. Clark says that when she took her cellular phone to a Sprint store in San Pedro, California, to be fixed, the Sprint employee said that the rejection sticker had turned red (supposedly indicating water damage), which voids the manufacturer warranty. The employee, who made no attempt to investigate what actually caused the problem, required her to pay $100 so that she can have her cellular telephone replaced under her insurance policy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kassra P. Nassiri, Esq. Charles H. Jung, Esq. NASSIRI & JUNG LLP 477 Kearny Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 762-3100 E-mail: knassiri@nassiri-jung.com cjung@nassiri-jung.com - and - Howard Yellen, Esq. 11200 Donner Pass Road, Suite 132 Truckee, CA 96161 Telephone: (415) 578-4550 E-mail: howardyellen@yahoo.com SPRINT NEXTEL: Judge Permits Arbitration Between Firms Over Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports a U.S. judge in Newark last Wednesday allowed an arbitration to proceed between two Illinois firms over a portion of $5.775 million in legal fees approved as part of a class action settlement. Lakin Chapman of Wood River, Ill., claims it has a right to one- third of the fees, or $1.925 million, as damages for breach of contract by the Chicago firm of Freed & Weiss, class counsel in Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 07-cv-5325. The suit challenged the imposition of flat-rate, early-termination fees on cell-phone contracts. U.S. District Judge Jose Linares denied Freed's motion to enjoin the arbitration on the basis that it would essentially re-litigate Linares's earlier decision approving the settlement and allocating fees. Judge Linares instead agreed with Lakin that the arbitration was separate and based on Freed's alleged breach of an agreement between the firms that settled litigation over who would handle class lawsuits they had worked together on before their relationship soured. The agreement made Lakin the lead counsel in an early-termination fee case against Sprint then pending in Illinois state court and barred Freed from filing a similar lawsuit without its prior approval. Freed allegedly violated the deal when it filed Larson in New Jersey. The Illinois case and others against Sprint elsewhere were extinguished by the Larson settlement. Judge Linares approved the $17.5 million settlement on Jan. 15, including a legal fee of $5.775 million, and he allocated the fees among class counsel and about 20 other firms that had represented objectors or handled state law cases in California and Florida that predated Larson and allegedly paved the way for the settlement. Lakin was not included in the allocation because it did not apply for fees and thus waived its right to share in them, argued Freed. It accused Lakin of trying to relitigate the fee issue and the propriety of the settlement. Freed also pointed out that the $1.925 million Lakin is seeking as contract damages -- one-third of the entire Larson fee -- is more than the $906,540 in fees it wound up with after paying the costs and the other lawyers. Judge Linares saw the claim as a contractual one distinct from Larson though implicating it because the filing of Larson was the alleged breach and the Larson class fees were being used to measure the contract damages. Paul Weiss, Esq., of Freed declines comment. Local class counsel James Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello in Roseland, could not be reached. Bradley Lakin, Esq., of the Lakin firm did not return a call. STRYKER CORP: NY Securities Suit Transferred to Michigan Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed against Stryker Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, has been transferred to a Michigan court, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The class action lawsuit was filed against the Company on January 15, 2010, on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock between January 25, 2007, and November 13, 2008, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In May 2010, the class action lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan Southern Division. The Company is evaluating the scope of the claim and intends to defend itself vigorously. Stryker Corporation -- http://www.stryker.com/-- is one of the world's leading medical technology companies and is dedicated to helping healthcare professionals perform their jobs more efficiently while enhancing patient care. The Company provides innovative orthopaedic implants as well as state-of-the-art medical and surgical equipment to help people lead more active and more satisfying lives. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class action filed against Synovus Financial Corp. in Georgia relating to securities fraud remains pending, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1 09-CV-1811) alleging, among other things, that Synovus and the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in violation of the federal securities laws. This includes purported exposure to Synovus' Sea Island lending relationship and the impact of real estate values as a threat to Synovus' credit, capital position, and business, and failure to adequately and timely record losses for impaired loans. The plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified amount. On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1 09-CV-3069), against certain current or former directors and executive officers of Synovus. The Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties based on substantially the same facts as alleged in the Securities Class Action. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and injunctive relief. On December 1, 2009, the Court consolidated the Securities Class Action and Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit for discovery purposes, captioned In re Synovus Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811- JOF, holding that the two cases involve "common issues of law and fact." Synovus and the individual named defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves against the Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit allegations. Synovus notes that there are significant uncertainties involved in any potential class action and derivative litigation. Based on information that presently is available to it, Synovus' management is unable to predict the outcome of the purported Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits and cannot currently reasonably determine the probability of a material adverse result or reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure, if any. Although the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot be ascertained at this time, based on information that presently is available to it, Synovus' management presently does not believe that the Securities Class Action or the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits, when resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- located in Columbus, Georgia, is a diversified financial services company and a registered bank holding company. Synovus Financial provides financial services, including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance, mortgage and leasing services. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Charged With Usury and Conversion -------------------------------------------------------------- Synovus Bank, a subsidiary bank of Synovus Financial Corp., was recently named as a defendant in a purported putative class action relating to the manner in which it charges overdraft fees to customers. The case entitled Griner et al. v. Synovus Bank, et al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury and conversion for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated- teller machine cards used to access customer accounts. Synovus intends to vigorously pursue all available defenses to these claims, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- located in Columbus, Georgia, is a diversified financial services company and a registered bank holding company. Synovus Financial provides financial services, including commercial and retail banking, financial management, insurance, mortgage and leasing services. TRANSMITTER SOLUTIONS: Sued for Making Unsolicited Fax Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- Addison Automatics, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Transmitter Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-34965 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. August 13, 2010), accuses the Bountiful, Utah-based company of faxing unsolicited advertisements, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Addison Automatics says that defendants' faxes cause recipients to lose paper and toner consumed in the printing of defendants' faxes, waste the recipients' valuable time, and unlawfully interrupt plaintiff's and the other class members' right to privacy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Dentists' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Triple-S Management Corporation and two of its subsidiaries remain as defendants in a complaint filed by the Puerto Rico Dentists Association. On Feb. 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association (Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage. The Corporation and two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc., were included as defendants. The litigation purports to be a class action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are similarly situated; however, the complaint does not include a single dentist as a class representative nor a definition of the intended class. The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services they render. The complaint also alleges, among other things, violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices, breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of $150 million. In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists. There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request for class certification and the merits. Two codefendant plans removed the case to federal court, which the plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Corporation, opposed. The federal District Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and remanded the case to state court. The removing defendants petitioned to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Having accepted the appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order in late October 2009 which found the lower court's decision premature. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the federal District Court and allowed limited discovery to determine whether the case should be heard in federal court pursuant to CAFA. No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Triple-S Management Corporation -- http://www.triplesmanagement.com/-- is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. It is the largest managed care company in Puerto Rico, serving approximately 1.3 million members. Triple-S Management also has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross Blue Shield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. With more than 50 years of experience in the industry, Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed care and related products in the Commercial, Medicare, and Reform markets under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand. In addition to its managed care business, Triple-S Management provides non-Blue Cross Blue Shield branded life and property and casualty insurance in Puerto Rico. The company is the largest provider of life, accident, and health insurance and the fourth largest provider of property and casualty insurance in its market. UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Ethridge Action ------------------------------------------------------- Universal Health Services, Inc., has reached a settlement with the attorneys for the class representative of a wage and hour lawsuit captioned Ethridge v. Universal Health Services, et al., in June 2010. The settlement will not materially affect Universal Health's consolidated financial position or results of operations, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The settlement is subject to court approval, which has not yet occurred. The company and one of its acute care facilities, Lancaster Community Hospital, were named as defendants in the lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in June 2008. The lawsuit is a purported class action lawsuit alleging that the hospital failed to provide sufficient meal and break periods to certain employees. Universal Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.uhsinc.com/-- is engaged in owning and operating, through its subsidiaries, acute-care hospitals, behavioral health centers, surgical hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and radiation oncology centers. VERIZON: Sued for Not Providing Family Leave Benefits to Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon refused to give employees legally required family leave, and fired them for asking for it, California claims in a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court. The state estimates the class has 1,000 to 1,500 members. VERMONT: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Overtime Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Free Press reports the Douglas administration has lost its bid for dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed by 80 state employees who claim they have been unlawfully denied the amount of overtime pay they were due for working for than 40 hours a week. U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions denied the state's request to dismiss the case and ordered lawyers to proceed to the next steps in the case. The state employees, members of the Corrections, judiciary and non-management supervisory bargaining units, argue that because they have reached the upper end of the state's pay grades, they are given straight time for extra hours instead of time and a half. They want back pay going back three years. The Douglas administration says the employees are salaried and aren't covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act provision for overtime. The federal law says its overtime provision doesn't apply to "any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity." Sessions didn't decide the question raised by the case; rather, he concluded there weren't grounds to dismiss it. VULCAN MATERIALS: Subsidiary Defends Two Consolidated Complaints ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vulcan Materials Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries, Inc., remains a defendant in two consolidated complaints pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A number of class action lawsuits were filed by several ready- mixed concrete producers and construction companies against a number of concrete and cement producers and importers in Florida. There are now two consolidated complaints: (1) on behalf of direct independent ready-mixed concrete producers, and (2) on behalf of indirect users of ready-mixed concrete. The defendants include Cemex Corp., Holcim (US) Inc., Lafarge North America, Inc., Lehigh Cement Company, Oldcastle Materials, Suwannee American Cement LLC, Titan America LLC, and Votorantim Cimentos North America, Inc. The complaints allege various violations under the federal antitrust laws, including price fixing and market allocations. No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida. VULCAN MATERIALS: Class Certification Hearing in Addair Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- The class certification hearing originally scheduled for August 2010, in the matter Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et al., has been stayed, according to Vulcan Materials Company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The company is a defendant in several cases involving perchloroethylene (perc), which was a product manufactured by the company's former Chemicals business. Perc is a cleaning solvent used in dry cleaning and other industrial applications. The cases involve various allegations of groundwater contamination, or exposure to perc allegedly resulting in personal injury. One such case is a purported class action case for medical monitoring and personal injury damages pending in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs allege various personal injuries from exposure to perc used in coal sink labs. Discovery is now complete. The class certification hearing scheduled for August 2010 has been stayed. Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida. WHITNEY CANADA: Quebec Court Okays Class Action in Land-Fraud Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ellen Mauro, writing for The Ottawa Citizen, reports a Quebec Superior Court has given the green light to a class-action lawsuit filed by more than 150 investors from across Canada who allege they were defrauded millions of dollars in a real-estate investment scheme. The court will allow the petitioners to seek damages from real estate training company Whitney Canada, Inc., and Desjardins Financial Security Investments, Inc. Pierre Sylvestre, the petitioners' lawyer, said his clients are seeking $50,000 each for pain and suffering and the return of their investments plus interest, for a total of $15 million. Despite the lawsuit go-ahead, some involved with the case are unhappy with the judge's decision to exclude five defendants listed in the original petition -- B2B Trust, Lloyd's Canada, Inc., Lloyd's Underwriters, Whitney Information Network, and Gatineau notary Jean Lafreniere -- due to insufficient evidence against them. "It's good news that we get to go after them collectively," said Silvio Gagnon, who alleges he and his wife lost a total of $76,000. "But we feel the other firms should be included because they robbed us too." Mr. Sylvestre said his clients might appeal that part of the decision. The original petition also listed three local businessmen as defendants. Francois Roy, Marc Jemus, and Robert Primeau have all filed for bankruptcy and Mr. Sylvestre said his clients won't be able to make claims against them until they are discharged by bankruptcy court. According to the complainants, investors in the alleged scam put money into real-estate investments that were never actually made. The main petitioner, David Brown, said he lost $65,000, but others lost up to $700,000 and one elderly couple lost their farm. ********* 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, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan 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 * * *