/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100922.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 22, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 187 Headlines 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Settlement Agreement Gets Final Approval ADVANTA CORP: Suit Against Officers Removed to Eastern Penn. ADVANTA CORP: Removed as Defendant in Steamfitters Suit ADVANTA CORP: Removed as Defendant in ERISA-Violations Suit ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court Limits Scope of Class in "Jimenez" Suit AMERICAN EXPRESS: Webb Klase Files Class Suit Over Interest Rates ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Suit Over Data Security Breach AON CONSULTING: Delaware State Retirees Swamp Lawyers With Calls ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Suit on Overtime Pay Miscalculation ASOTIN COUNTY: Settles Jail Booking Fee Litigation for $31,000 BLUE CROSS: Sued for Exposing Customers to Identity Theft BURLINGTON COAT: Recalls 10,000 Hooded Jackets and Sweatshirts CALIFORNIA CONVALESCENT: Accused in Calif. of Not Paying Overtime CHALMETTE REFINING: Mishandled Hazardous Chemicals, Suit Alleges CHINA-BIOTICS: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit in Calif. CLOROX CO: Settles Toilet Bowl Cleaner Litigation for $8 Million COMPONENT HARDWARE: Settles Class Suit for $2.5 Million CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Receives Copy of "Karam" California Suit ESURANCE INSURANCE: Faces Class Suit Over "Under-Insured" Policies EXPRESS INC: Estimates Possible Exposure to Suit at $1.9-$3.4MM FOX CO: Employees' Bankruptcy Claims Must Be Filed by Oct. 15 GENERAL GROWTH: Court to Hold Fairness Hearing on December 9 INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Recalls 1,600 Tea Sets LOWE'S HOME: Settles Dryer Duct Litigation for $3.85 Million LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Final Okay of "Stephens" Settlement Pending LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Kohlenberg" Settlement Final Okay Pending MAGMA DESIGN: Appellate Court Says Genesis Doesn't Owe Amount MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Remands "Kelley" Suit to District Court MOBILE CONTENT PROVIDERS: Settles Class Suits for $3.2 Million MYREXIS INC: Not Named a Defendant in 2nd Amended Javelin Suit PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Suit Over San Bruno Explosion PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Sued Over Undisclosed Lobbying Activities POM WONDERFUL: Faces Class Suit in Florida Over Health Claims RECOLOGY INC: Removes "Daniels" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif. REMEC INC: No Ruling Yet on Agreement with Plaintiffs RINGLEADER DIGITAL: Suit Complains About Media Stamp Program SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages SEMTECH CORP: Calif. Court Certifies Securities Class Suit SHORETEL INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $3-Mil. SPECTRANETICS CORP: Settles Securities Suit; Hearing on Jan. 21 TOYS R US: Agrees to Settle Pennsylvania Consumer Suit ********* 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Settlement Agreement Gets Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles County Superior Court gave its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving a suit against 1-800- FLOWERS.COM, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010. On Dec. 21, 2007, plaintiff Thomas Molnar, on behalf of himself and a putative class, filed suit against the company claiming false advertising, unfair business practices, and unjust enrichment seeking unspecified monetary damages. The company admitted to no wrongdoing with respect to this matter, but entered into a settlement agreement with the parties to this matter in order to avoid protracted litigation. The presiding trial Judge's Order Granting Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement and Entry of Judgment was issued May 17, 2010. The Company has sent out the applicable notices to the class members, and the company accrued for the estimated cost of the settlement of approximately $900,000 within its general and administrative expenses. 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. -- http://www.1800flowers.com/-- is the world's leading florist and gift shop. For more than 30 years, 1- 800-FLOWERS(R) (1-800-356-9377) has been providing customers with fresh flowers and the finest selection of plants, gift baskets, gourmet foods, confections, balloons and plush stuffed animals. ADVANTA CORP: Suit Against Officers Removed to Eastern Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit filed against certain current and former executive officers and directors of Advanta Corp. has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In June 2010, certain current and former executive officers and directors of the company were named along with other unaffiliated parties as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Neither the company nor any of its subsidiaries was named as a defendant. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of William Underland and all other similarly situated persons who purchased the company's senior unsecured debt securities between June 24, 2007 and Nov. 8, 2009. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made misleading and inaccurate statements and failed to disclose material information about the business and prospects of the company and its subsidiaries in the registration statement under which the Debt Securities were sold. The complaint alleges that plaintiff and other members of the purported class purchased Debt Securities in reliance on defendants' allegedly misleading and inaccurate statements and omissions during the Debt Securities Class Period. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. On July 23, 2010, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Advanta Corp. -- http://www.advanta.com/-- has had a 59-year history of being a leading innovator in the financial services industry and of providing great value to its stakeholders, including its senior retail note holders and shareholders, prior to the recent reversals. It has also been a major civic and charitable force in the communities in which it is based, particularly in the Greater Philadelphia area. ADVANTA CORP: Removed as Defendant in Steamfitters Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Advanta Corp. has been removed as a defendant in an amended complaint filed by the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In October 2009, the company and certain current or former executive officers of the company, were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund and all other similarly situated stockholders who purchased the company's Class A and/or Class B Common Stock between Oct. 31, 2006 and Nov. 27, 2007. In August 2010, an amended complaint was filed removing the company as a defendant, naming certain current and former directors of the company and certain former officers of ABC as additional defendants, and amending the Class Period to cover the period between Oct. 16, 2006 and Jan. 30, 2008. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results, which allegedly caused the plaintiff and other members of the purported class to purchase shares of the Company's Class A and Class B Common Stock at inflated prices during the Class Period. The amended complaint also alleges that certain of the defendants sold shares for substantial gains during the Class Period. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court deems just and proper. Advanta Corp. -- http://www.advanta.com/-- has had a 59-year history of being a leading innovator in the financial services industry and of providing great value to its stakeholders, including its senior retail note holders and shareholders, prior to the recent reversals. It has also been a major civic and charitable force in the communities in which it is based, particularly in the Greater Philadelphia area. ADVANTA CORP: Removed as Defendant in ERISA-Violations Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Advanta Corp. has been removed as a defendant in an amended complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In October and November 2009, the company and certain of its directors and current or former officers were named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These lawsuits were brought on behalf of named plaintiffs Matthew A. Ragan, Paula Hiatt, Pamela G. Yates and Joann Claflin and all other similarly situated persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Advanta Corp. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and/or the Advanta Corp. Employee Savings Plan and whose Plan investments included the company's common stock at any time between Oct. 31, 2006 and Nov. 8, 2009. In August 2010, an amended complaint was filed that consolidates the lawsuits that were filed separately in 2009. The amended complaint also removes the company as a defendant and names certain current or former officers of the company as additional defendants. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to prudently manage the Plans' investments in the company's securities and by failing to avoid inherent conflicts of interest resulting in losses to the Plans. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the Plans' losses in an unspecified amount. Advanta Corp. -- http://www.advanta.com/-- has had a 59-year history of being a leading innovator in the financial services industry and of providing great value to its stakeholders, including its senior retail note holders and shareholders, prior to the recent reversals. It has also been a major civic and charitable force in the communities in which it is based, particularly in the Greater Philadelphia area. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court Limits Scope of Class in "Jimenez" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Jimenez alleges that Allstate Indemnity Company breached its insurance contract when it calculated the value of Mr. Jimenez's claim using the market value of his property rather than using the replacement value less depreciation, capped at the policy's limit. Jimenez's class certification motion is not due until November 29, 2010, but Allstate, apparently faced with overly broad discovery requests, has moved preemptively to limit the scope of any class later certified. Allstate contends that any class should be limited to a) Michigan policyholders with 2) dates of loss on or after October 22, 2006, exactly one year before the complaint was filed. Mr. Jimenez moved to strike Allstate's motion on grounds that it is a preemptive attempt to limit the scope of any class certified, and therefore procedurally improper. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Mr. Jimenez's motion, and granted in part and denied in part Allstate's motion. Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III, ruled that any class eventually certified in the lawsuit Jimenez v. Allstate Indemnity Company, Case No. 07-cv-14494, will exclude persons with landlord package policies covering residences located in Michigan with dates of loss before October 22, 2006. A copy of the court's opinion is available for free at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100915a10 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Webb Klase Files Class Suit Over Interest Rates ----------------------------------------------------------------- Atlanta law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit against American Express alleging that the company unilaterally increased consumer interest rates in violation of the applicable credit card agreements. The complaint asserts that these increases were contrary to American Express' long-standing practice of tying its rates on many credit card accounts to the Prime Rate, the interest rate charged by banks to their most creditworthy customers. This commitment was established in the company's form contracts and through years of consistent dealings with customers according to the suit. The complaint states that American Express raised rates even for consumers who have always maintained their good standing by satisfying all account requirements, such as making required payments and not exceeding credit limits. Furthermore, the plaintiff claims American Express has taken such action even against those whose credit scores and general creditworthiness have not declined. The suit requests that customers be refunded all excessive interest charges in addition to several other forms of relief. The case, styled Meeks v. American Express Centurion Bank, Inc., is pending in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia and has been assigned Case Number 2010CV190851. According to the suit, for several years Mr. Meeks was charged a "fixed-variable" interest rate equal to the Prime Rate plus a "marginal rate" of 2.99 percent. In this manner, the plaintiff claims the company's interest rates tracked the Prime Rate, moving up when the Prime Rate climbed and down when the Prime Rate fell. The complaint asserts that the company unilaterally ended this practice in late 2008 and throughout 2009 by periodically increasing customers' marginal rates such that -- even as the Prime Rate fell to historic lows -- customers suffered higher and higher interest charges. For example, Mr. Meeks' marginal rate went from 2.99 percent to 11.99 percent and thus, even with the Prime Rate at 3.25 percent, American Express charged him interest of over 15 percent, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Meeks claims the improper and excessive rate hikes have cost him hundreds of dollars and more than doubled his monthly payments. The lawsuit asserts that American Express imposed these higher rates even on existing customer balances. In addition, the suit alleges that American Express's offer that customers could reject this interest rate increase by freezing or closing their credit card accounts is inadequate because, as the company is well aware, most consumers rely on their credit card accounts and closing any credit line has a negative impact on a consumer's credit score. As a result, the complaint contends that customers have been forced to accept American Express' unilateral rate increases. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Suit Over Data Security Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Helfand, writing for the Los Angeles Times, reports an applicant for Anthem Blue Cross insurance has sued the giant insurer over allegations that it failed to protect his confidential information from computer hackers who gained access to the company's internal records earlier this year. The lawsuit, filed by Patrick Magorien of Sacramento, stems from a security breach involving attorneys who were suing Anthem and gained access to private information of people who had applied for insurance. Mr. Magorien says in his lawsuit that his Social Security number, address and credit card numbers were released, potentially exposing him to identity theft. Mr. Magorien had also provided personal medical information to Anthem when he applied for insurance in June 2009. His suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks class action status on behalf of others whose personal data were compromised. "I'm really concerned for me personally and for everyone else who lost information," said Mr. Magorien, 25. "There is a lot of stuff in there that is really important." Anthem declined to comment on the lawsuit. But in a June 18 letter to Mr. Magorien and in a subsequent public statement, the Woodland Hills insurer said it addressed the problem as soon as it learned about the breach. Anthem did not say how many people were affected. In the public statement, the company said: "Anthem Blue Cross is committed to protecting the privacy and security of our members' and applicants' personal information, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations." AON CONSULTING: Delaware State Retirees Swamp Lawyers With Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- J.L. Miller, writing for The News Journal at Delaware Online, reports the Wilmington lawyers handling the lawsuit against Aon Consulting for inadvertently releasing state retirees' personal information on the Internet are pleading: Don't call us, we'll call you. Bruce Hudson and Mark Billion, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Milton retiree Gail Slaughter and are seeking to have it certified as a class-action lawsuit, said their phones have been ringing with calls from pensioners wanting to know what they have to do to become part of the lawsuit. The short answer: They don't have to do anything. "We are getting inundated with calls, understandably, from the retirees," Mr. Hudson said. Mr. Billion said there is no need for retirees to call. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action -- something expected to take months -- all 22,193 retirees will be notified. At that point, they will be told that they are part of the affected class, and they will be given an opportunity to opt out if they wish. Otherwise, they will automatically be included in the lawsuit. "It's a pretty straightforward process. They don't need to contact anyone," Mr. Billion said. If the Superior Court lawsuit is certified as a class action, Billion said, the case will go to trial or a settlement will be reached. If they win the case or there is a settlement, the pensioners "will share in the rewards on an equal basis," he said. The retirees' Social Security numbers were included in a request for proposals that Aon, the state's benefits consultant, had prepared to solicit bids from insurers interested in providing vision coverage. That document, which also included the retirees' age and gender, but not their names, was posted on the state's procurement Web site from Aug. 16 to Aug. 20 before it was discovered and removed. The breach was disclosed on Aug. 30. Catherine Kempista, spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, said calls from pensioners have slacked off, though they surged two weeks ago when OMB sent a follow-up letter to retirees. There have been no reports of any fraudulent activity on the retirees' accounts, Ms. Kempista said. The state has struck a deal with Aon to provide the retirees with three years of free credit monitoring through Experian, one of the three national credit bureaus. The initial deal was for one year, but after an outcry from the pensioners, who bombarded the state, Aon, Experian and The News Journal with phone calls, that offer was extended to three years. Ms. Kempista said OMB urges pensioners who have not yet signed up to do so. The enrollment deadline is Nov. 28. Pensioners should call Experian at (866) 252-0121. Those who did not receive or misplaced the letter from Aon containing their Experian activation code should call Aon at (866) 623-6047 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays. ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Suit on Overtime Pay Miscalculation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Fitzsimmons at WFMZ-TV News reports a furniture maker in Berks County is the target of a class action lawsuit. A Wyomissing-based law firm filed the suit against Ashley Furniture in Ontelaunee Township. The suit claims the company miscalculated the overtime pay of some hourly employees and violated the state's Minimum Wage Act. Ashley Furniture officials said they haven't seen the suit, but that all employees have been fully paid all the money they're owed. ASOTIN COUNTY: Settles Jail Booking Fee Litigation for $31,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE BOOKED INTO THE ASOTIN COUNTY JAIL FROM DECEMBER 6, 2004, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, WHO WERE CHARGED A BOOKING FEE AT THE TIME OF BOOKING AND WHO PAID MONEY TOWARDS THAT BOOKING FEE. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PENDING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. There is a proposed Settlement for a class action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington entitled Daniel K. Garrison v. Asotin County, Case No. CV-07-00392-JLQ This litigation alleges that Asotin County Jail's booking fee policy of charging inmates a booking fee at the time they are arrested and booked into Jail, without any type of pre- deprivation hearing, is a violation of their constitutional due process rights. The Defendant Asotin County denies all allegations, and is settling this action to avoid the burden and uncertainty of further litigation. Under the proposed Settlement, the Class of persons defined in bolded capital letters above may be eligible to participate in a settlement of $31,361.38, which does not cover any Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, expenses, and other costs that the Court may award. A hearing will be held on December 30, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Justin L. Quackenbush, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, located at 920 West Riverside Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201, to decide whether the proposed Settlement should be approved. Class Counsel is: Breean Lawrence Beggs Paukert & Troppmann, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 560 Spokane, WA 99201 If you have any questions, you are entitled to consult with Class Counsel by calling toll-free number 1-888-496-2996, or 1-888-720- 2704 Ext. 235. Please note: In order to receive a Class Benefit, each Class Member must complete and submit a Claim Form. The deadline to mail your Claim Form is December 15, 2010. You may obtain a copy of the Official Notice and Claim Form, and Settlement Agreement by contacting counsel at the telephone number listed above, or you may download a copy at http://www.wrcip.us/ HOW TO OBJECT OR OPT-OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT Any objections to the settlement must comply with the filing and service requirements outlined in the Official Notice referred to above, and must be submitted by December 15, 2010. If you choose to opt-out of the settlement, you will not be bound by the settlement of the Litigation. If you opt-out, however, you will not be eligible to receive the Class Benefit. NO INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT BLUE CROSS: Sued for Exposing Customers to Identity Theft --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross of California dba Anthem Blue Cross subjected its customers to identity theft and medical privacy invasion by letting hackers into its computer network on or before June 18, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. BURLINGTON COAT: Recalls 10,000 Hooded Jackets and Sweatshirts -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Burlington Coat Factory, of Burlington, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 10,000 Hooded Jackets and Sweatshirts. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The hooded jackets and sweatshirts have drawstrings through the hood and/or waist which can pose a strangulation or entrapment hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves: Brand Name Description Color Size --------- ----------- ----- ----- Aeropostale Boys' pullover sweatshirt with Aeropostale printed on front Brown Boys' size Small Apple Bottom Girls' zippered velvet jacket with "Apple Bottom" embroidered on Back Brown Girls' size 7 - 16 Deere Park Boys' zippered jackets Red and Blue Boys' sizes Disney Winnie the Pooh Zippered jackets with a picture of Winnie the Pooh on the front of the Jacket Blue with white sleeves with green and blue stripes on the sleeves 2T, 3T, 4T Gray Wolf Zippered jacket with Grey Wolf tag inside jacket and drawstring waist Dark Blue 13 - 14 Jonathon Stone Zippered jacket with "55" printed on front. J.stone" is printed on tag on Back of neck of the Garment Blue, red and white L Kani Gold Boys' zippered Sweatshirt Brown, black and grey Youth L (16/18) Miletta Zippered Jackets Black with faux fur cuffs and hood Medium (9 - 10) Mirika Girls' zippered Sweatshirts with embroidery on sleeves Red Medium New York Girls' zippered sleeveless Sweatshirt with "33 New York" embroidered on jacket Light Blue Small Ruff Stuff Boys' zipper and snap close jackets Blue and light blue Size 14 - 16 Sergio Benini Zippered heavy Jackets with snaps Brown Medium Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10347.html The recalled products were manufactured in China, Cambodia, Korea, and United States and sold through Burlington Coat Factory and other retailers nationwide from January 1995 through September 2009 for between $7 and $30. Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to Burlington Coat Factory for a full refund or credit. For additional information, contact Burlington Coat Factory toll-free at (888) 223-2628 between 8:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/ CALIFORNIA CONVALESCENT: Accused in Calif. of Not Paying Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that California Convalescent Hospital of Pasadena stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. CHALMETTE REFINING: Mishandled Hazardous Chemicals, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Massey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports a class action claiming the Sept. 6 chemical release from the Chalmette Refining facility in St. Bernard Parish was caused by untrained employees was filed Sept. 8 in federal court in New Orleans. Lauren Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, claims that unknown chemicals that were toxic, noxious and harmful were released into the atmosphere. The defendant is accused of failing to properly handle and contain the hazardous and harmful substance, allowing faulty and insufficient procedures and work practices, failing to properly warn petitioners to keep away from the substances, and failing to properly inspect their equipment and plant facility. Chalmette Refining is also accused of acting in a careless and negligent manner without due regard for the safety of others, failing to implement rules and regulations pertaining to the safe operation of the tasks being conducted at the time of the accident, inadequate and negligent training and hiring, failing to avoid or mitigate the accident, employing untrained and poorly- trained employees and failing to properly train their employees. Stone states the defendant failed to recognize the incident, failed to warn and failed to bring the situation under control. On behalf of herself and other potential class members, Ms. Stone is seeking damages for medical expenses, lost wage, loss of earning capacity, fear, anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychiatric and psychological damages, evacuation and property damage. Stone plaintiff is also seeking an award of interest, punitive damages, court costs and attorney fees. Ms. Stone is represented by: Daniel Becnel Jr., Esq. Matthew Moreland, Esq. Salvadore Christina, Esq. Christopher Devon Becnel, Esq. Toni Becnel, Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM LLC P.O. Drawer H 106 W. Seventh St. Reserve, LA 70084 Telephone: (985) 536-1186 - and - Jerrold Parker, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN ALONSO 3301 Bonita Beach Rd, #101 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 390-1000 - and - Camilo K. Salas III, Esq. SALAS & CO. 650 Poydras, Suite 1650 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: 504-799-3080 Facsimile: 504-799-3085 U.S. District Judge Helen G. Berrigan is assigned to the case. Case No. 2:10cv02957 CHINA-BIOTICS: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., disclosed Friday that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of China-Biotics, Inc., during the period between July 10, 2008 and August 30, 2010, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws. To join the China-Biotics class action, visit the firm's website 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 or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 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 violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against China-Biotics and certain of its present and former officers and directors for making material misstatements and omissions about the Company's true financial condition. According to the Complaint, during the Class Period Defendants misled investors about the quality, nature, and quantity of China-Biotics' purported retail outlets and stores. The Complaint also alleges that China-Biotics' fiscal 2008 financial statements filed with the SEC are materially false because the Company's fiscal 2008 financial statements filed with Chinese authorities reported merely a fraction of the cash, revenue and income set forth in the Company's 2008 financial statements with the SEC. The Complaint asserts that when this adverse information began to enter the market, the price of China- Biotics securities dropped, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 16, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 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 The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CLOROX CO: Settles Toilet Bowl Cleaner Litigation for $8 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- An $8 million settlement has been proposed in Hartless v. Clorox Company, Case No. 06-cv-02705 (S.D. Calif.) (Bencivengo, J.) -- a class action lawsuit about Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Bleach (CATBC) and Clorox's claim that CATBC does not harm plumbing. Each package of Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Bleach ("CATBC" or "Drop-In Tablets") states that the toilet cleaner "does not harm plumbing." The Plaintiff claims that this statement is deceptive. The Plaintiff claims that the chemicals in the Drop-In Tablets corrode the toilet tank parts, in particular, causing the rubber and plastic parts to deteriorate until the flush mechanism fails or no longer seals properly. The Plaintiff also claims that Clorox -- based on its own tests -- knew or should have known that the Drop-In Tablets would deteriorate the toilet tank parts, and yet sold the product by telling its customers that CATBC would not harm their plumbing. Clorox denies all wrongdoing and contends that CATBC is safe for plumbing when used as directed. You are a member of the Class if you purchased, used or suffered any property damage from use of CATBC from Dec. 13, 2002 to Sept. 15, 2010. Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) all federal court judges who have presided over this Action and their immediate family; (b) all persons who have submitted a valid request for exclusion from the Class; (c) Defendant's employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and their family members; and (d) those who purchased CATBC for the purpose of resale. Claim forms and additional information about the settlement are available at http://www.catbcsettlement.com/which is hosted by The Garden City Group, Inc. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Nov. 22, 2010, to consider final approval of the settlement and payment of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel. The Plaintiff Class is represented by: Leslie Hurst, Esq. Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1550 San Diego, CA 92101 Clorox is represented by: Sabrina Strong, Esq. O'Melvney & Myers LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 COMPONENT HARDWARE: Settles Class Suit for $2.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------- Hausfeld LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP disclosed a $2.5 million settlement with Component Hardware Group, Inc. (CHG) in In re Food Service Equipment Hardware Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-cv- 1849-WSD (N.D.Ga.). Hausfeld LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP serve as the class counsel law firms leading the case. In this antitrust class action, the plaintiffs allege that certain manufacturers and distributors of food service equipment products, including Kason Industries, Inc. and others, engaged in anticompetitive behavior from 2004 to 2009, including unlawfully allocating customers among themselves. CHG has settled the lawsuit without admitting any liability to avoid the costs and burdens associated with defending class action litigation. To resolve plaintiffs' claims, CHG has agreed to pay $800,000 in cash in two installments and to provide a 2.75% rebate to participating class members over two years for certain products. The parties estimate that the total value of the rebate is $1.7 million, bringing the total value of the settlement to $2.5 million. The settlement awaits court approval as the plaintiffs continue to pursue antitrust claims against Kason Industries, Inc. and others. Hausfeld LLP attorneys working on this case are Michael Hausfeld and Megan Jones; Labaton Sucharow LLP attorneys working on this case are Hollis Salzman and Ryan Kriger. Hausfeld LLP -- http://www.hausfeldllp.com/-- based in Washington, D.C., is a global law firm providing litigation services in the areas of consumer fraud, antitrust/competition law, human rights violations, product liability, civil rights, and environmental law. In addition to the Washington office, the firm has operations in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and London. Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com/-- with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of the country's premier law firms representing institutional investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been a champion of investor and consumer rights for over 45 years, seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Receives Copy of "Karam" California Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, Inc., in a Sept. 13, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosed that it has received a copy of a complaint in a purported class action lawsuit naming the company and several executive officers as defendants. The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that the company and the other defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business and prospects in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks damages for the purported class. The complaint was filed on Aug. 31, 2010 and is captioned, Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Jack P. Massimino, Peter C. Waller, Matthew A. Ouimet and Kenneth S. Ord. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is one of the largest post-secondary education companies in North America. The company's mission is to prepare students for careers in demand or for advancement in their chosen field. Through its Everest, WyoTech and Heald campuses, Corinthian offers diploma and associate degree programs in a variety of high-demand occupational areas, including healthcare, business, criminal justice, transportation technology and maintenance, construction trades and information technology. ESURANCE INSURANCE: Faces Class Suit Over "Under-Insured" Policies ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison County Record, reports a newly filed class action lawsuit in Madison County claims "under-insured" policies sold by Esurance Insurance Services are of no value. Lukus Keeling claims he purchased automobile insurance through Esurance on Oct. 6, 2009. The policy Keeling purchased included a provision in case he got into an accident with an under-insured driver, in which case Esurance promised to pay $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident, according to the complaint filed Sept. 8. However, because Illinois law sets the minimum limit for bodily injury liability coverage at $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident, any Illinois driver who could potentially collide with Mr. Keeling would have the same coverage. Therefore, Mr. Keeling or any other Illinois resident who purchased the same insurance coverage would never be able to make a claim against his under- insured motorist coverage, the suit states. "Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendant continues to sell $20,000/$40,000 Underinsured Motorist Coverage to its customers, charging them for 'coverage' that is wholly illusory," the complaint says. In his complaint, Mr. Keeling alleges Esurance violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. He also accuses the company of negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, the suit states. Mr. Keeling is asking the court to certify his case as a class action, to award statutory, common law and punitive damages, to award attorneys' fees and to force the defendants to disgorge and place in constructive trust ill-gotten funds. In addition, he wants the court to prevent Esurance from continuing its behavior and to award other relief it deems just. Mr. Keeling and the putative class will be represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Toll Free: (800) 721-2519 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - E. Ryan Bradley, Esq. THE BRADLEY LAW FIRM 130 South Bemiston, Suite 706 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 721-9111 E-mail: ryan@thebradleylawfirm.com Madison County Circuit Court case number: 10-L-936. EXPRESS INC: Estimates Possible Exposure to Suit at $1.9-$3.4MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Express, Inc., in its Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010, estimates that the potential exposure for losses related to the purported class action lawsuit against the company ranges from approximately $1,900,000 to $3,400,000. The complaint was originally filed on Feb. 18, 2009, and an amended complaint was filed on March 18, 2009. The amended complaint contains six counts: (1) failure to provide required meal breaks to the class members and failure to pay the class members for missed meal breaks, including premium payments required by California law; (2) failure to provide required rest breaks to the class members and failure to pay the class members for missed rest breaks, including premium payments required by California law; (3) failure to pay wages in a timely manner to employees who were terminated or quit; (4) failure to pay overtime or premium payments in a timely manner; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (6) violations of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. The company estimated that the potential exposure for losses related to this lawsuit ranges from approximately $1,900,000 to $3,400,000 and has accrued an amount on the Consolidated Balance sheet as of July 31, 2010 to reflect its best estimate of this risk. The company adds that as the situation develops and more information becomes available, the amount of the reserve may increase or decrease accordingly. Express, Inc. -- http://express.com/-- is the sixth largest specialty retail brand of women's and men's apparel in the United States. The company has 30 years of experience offering a distinct combination of fashion and quality for multiple lifestyle occasions at an attractive value addressing fashion needs across work, casual, jeanswear and going-out occasions. The company currently operates 576 retail stores, located primarily in high- traffic shopping malls, lifestyle centers and street locations across the United States and Puerto Rico, and also distributes its products through the company's e-commerce Web site. FOX CO: Employees' Bankruptcy Claims Must Be Filed by Oct. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- If You Were an Employee of Fox Co., Inc., on or after May 31, 2002, A Class Action Lawsuit Could Affect Your Rights PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENTS DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE. Your rights may be affected by a lawsuit pending in the Pierce County Superior Court, Cause No. 05-2-08756-6 and captioned Curry v. Fox Co., Inc. The pleadings and other records in this litigation may be examined and copied during regular business hours at the Office of the Superior Court, 930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 110, Tacoma, WA 98402. You may also obtain documents for your review from class counsel at the address listed below. Am I a Member of the Class? The class definition includes the following members: "All nonsalaried employees of Fox Co., Inc., who worked for Fox Co., Inc., at anytime between May 31, 2002 through December 31, 2005 and were compensated as a piece rate worker whether now employed by Fox Co., Inc. or not. What is the lawsuit about? Defendants Fred Fox and Darcy Fox have filed for bankruptcy protection under Western Washington Bankruptcy Court Case No.09- 48718. Any payment to class claimant by Fred Fox and Darcy Fox will be paid on a pro-rata basis in relation to other unsecured claims filed in this bankruptcy case. Pursuant to Pierce County Superior Court Order dated September 15, 2006, the Court granted liability under RCW 49.46.130 for unpaid overtime wages owed to hourly employees, liability under RCW 49.46.130 for unpaid overtimes wages owed to piece rate workers, and liability under RCW 49.52.070 for willful failure to pay overtime wages owed to hourly employees and piece workers against Fox Co., Inc., Fred Fox, Jane Doe Fox, and Melody Fox. Prior to the bankruptcy filing of Fred and Darcy Fox, Defendants reached a settlement with Plaintiff's class in which Defendants would pay to the class claimants, pursuant to the claims process, a total amount not to exceed $450,000 and not less than $200,000! Rights and Obligations of Class Members If you believe you are a claimant and you would like to obtain a form to submit a claim or object to this process, please read the information in this paragraph. To share in the benefits of the proposed settlement, you must be a class member who was employed by Fox Company Inc. as a piece rate worker and received a paycheck, between the dates of May 31, 2002 and December 31, 2005. You must also complete a Proof of Claim Form that can be obtained by writing or calling: Brian L. Budsberg at the number and address listed below. You may also obtain a claim form by visiting the Web site http://curryvfox.com/and downloading a claim form. In order to for your claim to be submitted in a timely manner, you must complete and post mark your completed proof of claim to: Brian L. Budsberg, Esq. Budsberg Law Group, P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 1489 Olympia, WA 98507 Telephone: (360) 584-9093 E-mail: trustee@budsberg.com by October 15, 2010. All claims must be postmarked or delivered to the firm no later than October 15, 2010. You may have received a claim form and copy of this notice by mail at your last known address. Additionally, if you object to this process please file your objection with the bankruptcy court by submitting this objection to the bankruptcy court by submitting your objection the bankruptcy court 1717 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2209, Courtroom I, Tacoma, Washington 98402 during regular business hours and submitting a copy of your objection to Brian L. Budsberg at the address listed above. GENERAL GROWTH: Court to Hold Fairness Hearing on December 9 ------------------------------------------------------------ Counsel for Plaintiffs in the lawsuit In Re General Growth Properties, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 08-cv-6680 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, announce the proposed settlement of this class action. The Settlement Class is defined as: All participants or beneficiaries in the General Growth 401(k) Savings Plan at any time between April 30, 2007, and April 16, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), whose Plan account(s) held investments in General Growth Properties, Inc. common stock and/or the General Growth Properties, Inc. Common Stock Fund for their benefit during the Class Period, other than the Defendants and their immediate family members. The Plaintiffs in this litigation allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the Plan and its participants by allowing them to purchase or hold GGP common stock in the Plan during the Class Period. The parties have reached an agreement to settle the litigation. While the parties have decided to settle the case, Defendants adamantly deny any wrongdoing. On August 19, 2010, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, certified this case as a class action for settlement purposes and directed that this Notice be publicized to inform potential Settlement Class members of the pending litigation. A fairness hearing has been scheduled for December 9, 2010, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, before the Honorable James B. Zagel. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and have not received a Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action describing the litigation, the proposed settlement, and your rights as a Class member, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by visiting www.berdonclaims.com, by calling 800-766-3330, or by identifying yourself as a Settlement Class member and writing to: GGP ERISA Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914. Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Court or the Clerk of the Court. INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Recalls 1,600 Tea Sets -------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with International Coffee & Tea, LLC, dba The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf(R), of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,600 Tea Sets. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. Sparking from the metallic decorations on the tea sets can result if used in a microwave oven, posing a risk of fire. International Coffee & Tea has received one report from a consumer of a tea cup sparking when used in a microwave oven. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Tea for One "Flourish" design tea pot set, which includes a stackable teapot and cup. The teapot and cup are white ceramic with matching metallic foil decorations on each. The tea cup is marked "Dishwasher and microwave safe" and "Made in China" on the bottom, in English and French. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10348.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf(R) stores in California, Arizona and Nevada for about $12, and online at http://www.coffeebean.com/ for about $10 from March 2010 through August 2010. Consumers should return the tea sets to The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf(R) stores for a full refund. Consumers who purchased the product on-line can contact The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf company for instructions on returning the tea sets by mail. For additional information, contact The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf (R) at (800) 832- 5323/(800) TEA LEAF between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.coffeebean.com/ LOWE'S HOME: Settles Dryer Duct Litigation for $3.85 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ A national settlement has been reached in Kaiser-Flores v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-00045 (W.D.N.C.) and Eckstein v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-00095 (W.D.N.C.). The $3.85 million settlement provides $20 payments to all persons who purchased a clothes dryer from a Lowe's store and received from Lowe's delivery and hookup of that dryer with a foil or plastic transition duct in the United States who submit valid Claim Forms by Dec. 18, 2010. Claim forms and additional information are available at http://www.dryerductsettlement.com/ which is hosted by Rust Consulting, Inc. The lawsuit claims that Lowe's sold clothes dryers and then delivered and hooked up those dryers using a foil or plastic transition duct rather than a rigid metal vent as directed by dryer manufacturers. Lowe's denies it did anything wrong. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Dec. 14, 2010, to consider whether to approve the Settlement, and a request by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees. Class Counsel will also ask for a payment of up $2,500 for each Class Representative who helped the lawyers on behalf of the whole Class. The Plaintiff Class is represented by: Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Lowe's is represented by: Kimball R. Anderson, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60601 LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Final Okay of "Stephens" Settlement Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval of the settlement agreement entered into by lululemon athletica inc. and the plaintiffs in the matter Mia Stephens et al. v. lululemon athletica inc., is pending in the San Diego Superior Court, California, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010. On April 2, 2009, three former hourly company employees filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the company violated various California Labor Code sections by requiring employees to wear lululemon clothing during working hours without reimbursing such employees for the cost of the clothing and by paying certain bonus payments to its employees in the form of lululemon gift cards redeemable only for lululemon merchandise. The complaint also alleges that the company owes waiting time penalties as the result of failing to pay employees all wages due at the time of termination. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The company and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement on settlement terms and the agreement has received tentative approval from the court. lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in North America. Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the lululemon athletica brand name. The company offers a line of apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance, running and general fitness. It offers a line of performance apparel and accessories for both women and men. The company's fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital versatile discs, water bottles and headbands. LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Kohlenberg" Settlement Final Okay Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval of the settlement agreement entered into by lululemon athletica inc. and the plaintiff in the matter Brett Kohlenberg et al. v. lululemon athletica inc., is pending in the Orange County Superior Court, California, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010. On March 26, 2009, a former hourly Company employee filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the company violated various California Labor Code sections by failing to pay its employees for certain rest and meal breaks and "off the clock" work, and for penalties related to waiting times and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The company and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement on settlement terms and the agreement has received tentative approval from the court. Plaintiffs and the company must now go through the process of obtaining final approval. lululemon athletica inc. -- http://www.lululemon.com/-- is a designer and retailer of technical athletic apparel primarily in North America. Its yoga-inspired apparel is marketed under the lululemon athletica brand name. The company offers a line of apparel and accessories, including fitness pants, shorts, tops and jackets designed for athletic pursuits, such as yoga, dance, running and general fitness. It offers a line of performance apparel and accessories for both women and men. The company's fitness-related accessories include an array of items such as bags, socks, underwear, yoga mats, instructional yoga digital versatile discs, water bottles and headbands. MAGMA DESIGN: Appellate Court Says Genesis Doesn't Owe Amount ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Genesis Insurance Company, under its policy, does not owe the settlement amount that it had paid towards resolving a securities class action against Magma(R) Design Automation Inc., according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010. In Genesis Insurance Company v. Magma Design Automation, et al., Case No. 06-5526-JW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Genesis seeks a declaration of its rights and obligations under an excess directors and officers liability policy for defense and settlement costs arising out of the securities class action against the company, in re Magma Design Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, as well as a related derivative lawsuit. Genesis seeks a return of $5.0 million it paid towards the settlement of the securities class action and derivative lawsuits from the company or from another of the company's excess directors and officers liability insurers, National Union. The company contends that either Genesis or National Union owes the settlement amounts, but not the company. The trial court granted summary judgment for the company and National Union, finding that Genesis owed the settlement amount. Genesis appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the company cross-appealed. On July 12, 2010, the court of appeal reversed, ruling that Genesis does not owe the settlement amount under its policy, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Securities Suit On June 13, 2005, The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust filed a putative shareholder class action suit against: -- Magma Design Automation, Inc., -- Rajeev Madhavan, -- Gregory C. Walker, and -- Roy E. Jewell. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose information regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages. In March 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiff filed a further amended complaint in June 2006, which the defendants again moved to dismiss. The defendants' dismissal motion was granted in part and denied in part by an order dated Aug. 18, 2006. Specifically, the order dismissed claims against several of the defendants. On Nov. 30, 2007, the parties agreed to a settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, a settlement for $13.5 million was proposed in the suit "In re Magma Design Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-05-2394 CRB." The settlement class includes all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Magma Design Automation during the period between Oct. 23, 2002, through April 12, 2005, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 7, 2008. On Dec. 5, 2008, the court held a hearing on final approval of the settlement and requested that plaintiff submit additional information, including information on claims by class members. The court granted final approval to this settlement on March 27, 2009. Magma(R) Design Automation Inc. -- http://www.magma-da.com/-- electronic design automation (EDA) software provides the "Fastest Path to Silicon"(TM) and enables the world's top chip companies to create high-performance integrated circuits (ICs) for cellular telephones, electronic games, WiFi, MP3 players, digital video, networking and other electronic applications. Magma products are used in IC implementation, analog/mixed-signal design, analysis, physical verification, circuit simulation and characterization. The company maintains headquarters in San Jose, Calif., and offices throughout North America, Europe, Japan, Asia and India. Magma's stock trades on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol LAVA. MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Remands "Kelley" Suit to District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the certification decision of the district court for abuse of discretion in the lawsuit Kelley v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 09-35699. The lawsuit involves alleged misrepresentations and omissions in Microsoft Corporation's pre-release marketing of its Windows Vista operating system. Plaintiffs-Appellants Dianne Kelley, Kenneth Hansen, Jim Walters, Matt Morales, Russell Hall, and Don Schroder appeal the denial of their motion for narrowed class certification of two classes proposed after the district court decertified their original class. The district court held that the putative classes failed to meet the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Ninth Circuit noted that the district court failed properly to conduct the predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3) and the district court did not consider whether other elements of a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act present questions of law or fact common or individual to the class members, and what effect those questions, if any, have on the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of class certification and remand to the district court for further certification proceedings consistent with this disposition. "We stress that by doing so, we express no view concerning whether on a proper analysis, the denial of class certification would be within the district court's discretion." A copy of the court's opinion is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100914134 MOBILE CONTENT PROVIDERS: Settles Class Suits for $3.2 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- A group of mobile content providers, including Cylon, Cellfish Media, Predicto Mobile, Too Lazy, the application provider 3C Interactive, and the aggregator OpenMarket, have agreed to settle a number of class action lawsuits against them, involving claims that these companies charged wireless subscribers for "mobile content" without authorization. To be clear, the Defendants have denied any wrongful conduct, and the settlement is in no way a judgment or ruling by the Court that any party engaged in any wrongful or illegal conduct. "Mobile content" refers to electronic products such as ringtones, games, graphics, news, and other alerts that are provided through mobile phones and are charged directly to consumers' mobile phone bills. Although a relatively new form of commerce, mobile content has evolved to form a large and increasingly important industry. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois; it provides for refunds for unauthorized mobile content charges to settlement members, and attorney's fees of up to $3.2 million. Settlement members are eligible to receive a one-time cash award of $10.00, or a refund of up to three months of content subscription charges. Per the lawsuits FAQ's: Members of the settlement class include any person in the U.S. and its territories who, at any time prior to September 13, 2010, was billed and paid for unauthorized content from any of the settling Defendants. Individuals can find out if they are eligible by scanning past phone records for short codes that identify the various mobile content companies. Participants in the AT&T, Mobile Messenger, Media Breakaway, mBlox, m-Qube or Jamster! Settlements are not eligible. In addition to the payout, the Defendants are required to agree to adhere to certain guidelines for mobile content sales and marketing -- including properly disclosing billing terms -- as well as promptly refunding unauthorized content. Attorneys Jay Edelson, Myles McGuire, Rafey S. Balabanian, and Steven L. Lezell of Edelson McGuire, LLC, were appointed by the Court to serve as the attorneys for the class. Full details can be found at www.MobileChargesClassAction.com. Class members may also call the claims administrator directly at 1-888-505-5589 or class counsel at 1-866-354-3015. Plaintiffs' counsel can be reached at: Myles McGuire, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC Telephone: 1-312-589-6370 Facsimile: 1-312-589-6378 E-mail: mmcguire@edelson.com MYREXIS INC: Not Named a Defendant in 2nd Amended Javelin Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Myrexis, Inc., was not named a defendant in a second amended complaint originally filed against Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. Beginning on Dec. 23, 2009, several putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., members of Javelin's board of directors, Myrexis, Inc. and MPI Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of Myrexis, Inc., in the Suffolk Superior Court Business Litigation Session in Massachusetts. The actions, first served on Javelin on Jan. 5, 2010, styled Schnipper v. Watson et al., Parrish v. Watson et al. and Andrews v. Driscoll et al., alleged, among other things, that the members of Javelin's board of directors violated their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize value for Javelin's stockholders when negotiating and entering into the Agreement and Plan of Merger with Myrexis and MPI Merger Sub, dated Dec. 18, 2009, pursuant to which MPI Merger Sub was to be merged with and into Javelin, with Javelin continuing after the merger as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Myrexis. The complaints also alleged that Myrexis, MPI Merger Sub and Javelin aided and abetted those purported breaches. Plaintiffs sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed merger or, in the alternative, to rescind the proposed merger should it occur before the lawsuits were resolved. On Jan. 13, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating the actions. The order was entered by the court on Jan. 21, 2010. Pursuant to the stipulation, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Feb. 23, 2010. Plaintiffs also filed an "emergency" motion seeking expedited discovery, which defendants opposed. After a March 12, 2010, hearing on the motion for expedited discovery, the court denied the motion. On April 19, 2010, after receipt of an acquisition proposal from Hospira, Inc., Javelin terminated the merger agreement with Myrexis. On May 3, 2010, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking leave to serve a second amended complaint challenging the potential acquisition of Javelin by Hospira. In addition, on May 5, 2010, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking expedited discovery from Javelin and an order preliminarily enjoining the potential acquisition of Javelin by Hospira. Myrexis and MPI Merger Sub were not named as defendants in the putative second amended complaint and plaintiffs' emergency motions did not seek any relief against Myrexis or MPI Merger Sub. Hospira acquired Javelin via a tender offer and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice against the Javelin defendants on July 16, 2010. Myrexis, Inc. -- http://www.myrexis.com/-- is a biotechnology company focused on discovering, developing, and commercializing novel treatments for cancer. The company has leveraged a unique understanding of the genetic causes of human disease to generate a robust pipeline of clinical and preclinical product candidates. These include compounds with distinct mechanisms of action and novel chemical structures that have first-in-class and/or best-in- class therapeutic potential. Myrexis is led by an experienced management team with expertise in human genetics, protein-protein interaction technology and chemical proteomic drug discovery. PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Suit Over San Bruno Explosion ------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys at Audet & Partners, LLP, a San Francisco, California- based trial law firm, have filed a class action complaint (Case # CIV498932) against Pacific Gas & Electric Company arising out of the devastating explosion and fire in San Bruno, California. Filed in San Mateo State Court in California, the complaint seeks class wide damages and the immediate release by PG&E of the "One Hundred Million-Dollar Fund" promised by PG&E to the San Bruno community and its residents. As alleged in the filed class action complaint, the plaintiff, a resident of San Bruno, seeks to represent the San Bruno community as a whole impacted by the San Bruno Explosion and Fire, including homeowners, renters and small businesses. As has been reported, the explosion appears to be the result of lack of proper precautions and updates to PG&E gas pipes that run through and near residential areas of San Bruno. At least 37 homes have been reported to be totally uninhabitable and residents of San Bruno in the surrounding areas had to flee their homes due to the explosion and fire. "From the reports we have received, it appears that PG&E's $100 million dollar pledge was nothing more than a public relations move, and we are asking the Court to place the funds in an escrow account so that the community can decide what to do with the funds," stated lead plaintiff's attorney William M. Audet of Audet & Partners, LLP. Furthermore, as Mr. Audet pointed out, "we need to immediately provide for financial advances to cover rent and other costs for those who no longer have a home to live in, and we need to have the community -- not PG&E -- decide the proper use of the funds." According to the allegations in the complaint, because PG&E essentially bears the legal responsibility, thus it should bear the financial responsibility for the losses incurred due to the explosion. "All of the class members have been impacted, and this class action complaint is the first step to expedite the payment to those injured by the explosion and fire," stated William M. Audet. More information about this case is available at: http://is.gd/fkDDc Audet & Partners, LLP, is a San Francisco Bay Area based law firm. The law firm represents individuals, governmental entities, small businesses and shareholders in product liability, tort, negligence, consumer, construction defect, investment fraud, securities, insider trading, antitrust, environmental, whistle blower, aviation and employment cases. The founding partner, attorney William M. Audet, has served as court-approved lead counsel in dozens of federal and state cases throughout the United States. Mr. Audet can be reached at: William M. Audet AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP Telephone: 415-982-1776 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Sued Over Undisclosed Lobbying Activities --------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the Philadelphia Housing Authority forced employees to contribute money and gifts for "lavish" parties where attendance was mandatory, workers say in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Jenelle Scott claims the PHA also deducted money from employees' paychecks to support a nonprofit that lobbied for federal funds. The class claims that when PHA Chief of Police Richard Zappile was organizing a 10th anniversary party for PHA Director Carl Greene, he sent out invitations asking guests to donate $1,000 to $5,000 to Tenant Support Services (TSSI). "Soon after plaintiff began working as defendant Greene's administrative assistant, she was compelled to contribute money and gifts to defendant Greene for parties she was required to attend," according to the complaint. Any organization that receives federal funding must disclose its lobbying activities, but the PHA has not disclosed lobbying activities since 2002, the class claims. "But the money TSSI received from defendant Mr. Zappile's solicitation went towards a lavish 10th anniversary party for defendant Greene," according to the complaint. "Defendant TSSI received more than $38,000. Approximately half of the money went to pay for the party, 'which left TSSI with a $21,934 profit.'" The PHA has an annual budget of $345 million, funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Moving to Work Demonstration Program and Annual Contributions Contract, according to the complaint. "The PHA is prohibited from using any federal funds for lobbying activity or to influence or attempt to influence the awarding of any federal contract and it must certify that no federally appropriated funds have been used for that purpose and it must disclose if any funds other than federally appropriated funds were used for that purpose," according to the complaint. About 300 people belong to the class, which is suing the PHA, the Pennsylvania Institute of Affordable Housing Professionals, PHA- Tenant Support Services, Mr. Greene, Mr. Zappile, PHA assistant executive director Diane Rosenthal, PHA communications manager Kirk Dorn and PHA-Tenant Support Services director Asia Coney. "In addition to money demanded for gifts and parties for defendant Greene, plaintiff Scott was forced to donate a portion of her paycheck to a nonprofit corporation defendant Greene created - defendant Pennsylvania Institute of Affordable Housing Professionals (PIAHP)," according to the complaint. The class claims that PHA representatives told employees that PIAHP exists solely to lobby HUD for funds that would prevent cuts and layoffs. Deductions from paychecks continued from 2006 to September 2010, according to the complaint. "The PHA required employees to contribute a portion of their weekly paycheck or make a lump sum annual contribution to defendant PIAHP to fund the aforementioned lobbying activities," according to the complaint. "However, based upon the fact that defendant Greene never disclosed any lobbying activities for HUD funding, it appears that defendant PIAHP's stated purpose is questionable. This is further supported by the fact that it laid off 22 percent of its workforce. Yet, defendant PHA continued taking money from employees' paychecks that went to defendant PIAHP." PIAHP president Dorn claimed that the contributions were voluntary, according to the complaint. The class seeks an injunction and punitive damages for civil rights violations and conversion. A copy of the Complaint in Scott v. The Philadelphia Housing Authority, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04723 (E.D. Pa.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/17/Philly.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Pileggi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL PELIGGI 303 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: 215-627-8516 - and - L. Kenneth Chotiner, Esq. THE CHOTINER FIRM 1818 Market St., Suite 3620 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-564-6544 POM WONDERFUL: Faces Class Suit in Florida Over Health Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Starling at NUTRAingredients-usa.com reports a class action has been lodged in a Florida state court alleging POM Wonderful misled consumers with at least six different health claims, as the Californian pomegranate pioneer's legal battles multiply. The plaintiff alleges POM misled consumers with claims that it could benefit atherosclerosis; blood pressure; prostate cancer; erectile function; cardiovascular disease; cholesterol levels and other age related medical conditions. The action, lodged in August, cites Food and Drug Administration, National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus and the UK Advertising Standards Authority warnings against some of POM's claim making as grounds for the complaint. It comes at a time POM is fighting battles on many fronts. Just last week it sued the Federal Trade Commission over standards it is employing when assessing the veracity of claims. Last week also saw a verdict delivered in a case POM mounted against fellow juice maker Welch's over its own pomegranate juice claims. Welch's was told to amend labeling that was found to imply its juices were 100% pomegranate when they were not, but the court found, while this had deceived consumers, it had not damaged POM's own business. Ongoing are actions POM has mounted against Coca Cola Minute Maid, PepsiCo Tropicana and Ocean Spray alleging misleading claims about the contents of their pomegranate-containing juice products. In its defense Coke said its Minute Maid pomegranate-containing juice met FDA labeling requirements, which the US District Court of California agreed with in a summary judgment. But POM is appealing that verdict in the 9th District Circuit Court. Class action Ivan Wasserman, a Washington DC-based advertising and labeling attorney at Manatt Phelps & Phillips, said the class action filed by Robbins, Geller, Rudman and Dowd was indicative of a developing claims-skeptical environment in the US. "Even for companies working diligently to accurately communicate the health benefits of their products, it seems like it is becoming almost inevitable that if you have success in the market at some point you will find yourself defending a class action," he said. "It is a real shame. In our practice, we are seeing more and more every year." New York-based food and drug attorney Marc Ullman from Ullman Shapiro and Ullman agreed and questioned the motivation of the Florida action and many others. "I'm not surprised to see actions like this but most of these actions are not motivated by public health, rather firms and individuals chasing a quick buck," he said. The class action alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and breach of express warranty. It seeks restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign, costs, and attorney's fees. POM is also involved in action with its former legal firm, Hogan Lovells, over unpaid legal fees. It was in this case that an FTC investigation into POM's activities was revealed and which led POM to seek and win an injunction against media reporting of that investigation. RECOLOGY INC: Removes "Daniels" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hezzack Daniels, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Recology Inc., et al., Case No. 10-501563 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on August 12, 2010. The plaintiff accuses the solid waste management services provider of not paying for all hours worked, failing to maintain accurate employee time records, failing to furnish wage and hour statements, and unfair business practices in violation of the Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200. Mr. Daniels, individually, further asserts claims against all defendants for disability or perceived disability discrimination, in violation of Government Code Sec. 12940. Mr. Daniels says that defendants at all times were aware that he had Type-1 Diabetes, a disability within the meaning of Government Code Sec. 12926.1, yet suspended him from work without pay for three months when be failed to provide a urine sample during a drug test conducted by the defendants as part of his employment. Mr. Daniels says his disability causes him, when his insulin levels are abnormal, not to be able to urinate. On September 15, 2010, Recology Inc., et al., removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-04140 to the proceeding. The defendants say that this is a civil action of which the district court has original jurisdiction under U.S.C. 1331, and is one which may be removed pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b). The defendants add that plaintiff's claims require substantial interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, and is therefore entirely preempted by Sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185. The removal notice states that Mr. Daniels commenced working for Recology San Francisco on May 2, 2008, as a "sorter/classifier," whose job is to sort, weigh, and transfer solid waste at defendant's recycling facility in San Francisco, and that from the beginning of his employment, Mr. Daniels has been a member of the Sanitary Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 350. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hoffman, Esq. Alec Segarich, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 362-1111 E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. Alison S. Hightower, Esq. Aimee E. Axelrod, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com ahightower@littler.com aaxelrod@littler.com REMEC INC: No Ruling Yet on Agreement with Plaintiffs ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has yet to issue a ruling on the agreement entered into by REMEC, Inc., and the plaintiffs in a dismissed consolidated securities fraud lawsuit. Under the agreement, the parties agreed to request dismissal of the Appeal and Cross Appeal, exchange releases, and accept the final judgment of the District Court, according to the company's Sept. 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the company and certain former officers alleging violations of federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004. On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was appointed lead plaintiff. After several consolidated and amended complaints were filed, challenged by the company and dismissed by the court with leave to amend, the court denied REMEC's motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint on Sept. 25, 2006. REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on Nov. 6, 2006, denying all liability and asserting certain affirmative defenses. The court granted plaintiff's motion for class- certification on Nov. 21, 2007. The parties engaged in discovery, including production of documents, between May 2007 and March 2009. All discovery, including expert discovery, is now closed. There are currently four motions seeking summary judgment or partial summary judgment pending before the Court, three made by the defendants and one made by the plaintiffs. The time period for filing dispositive motions has closed. A Pretrial Conference was for Jan. 25, 2010, and Trial was set for Feb. 23, 2010. On April 21, 2010 the Court issued an Order on the motions, granting Defendants' motions for Summary Judgment based on Scienter and Loss Causation. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed that judgment be entered for Defendants. The Plaintiffs had 30 days from Notice of Entry of Judgment to file a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 21, 2010 the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. On June 2, 2010, the Defendants filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. On Aug. 30, 2010, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the parties agreed to request dismissal of the Appeal and Cross Appeal, exchange releases, and accept the final judgment of the District Court. The agreement does not include the payment of any money by the company or its insurers. The suit is In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-1948 (S.D. Calif.) (Miller, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 617-1200 Facsimile: (213) 617-1975 - and - David W. Mitchell, Esq. LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 - and - Blake Muir Harper, Esq. HULETT HARPER STEWART, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1133 Facsimile: (619) 338-1139 Representing the defendants is: Robert W. Brownlie, Esq. DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY, US, LLP 401 "B" Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 699-2700 Facsimile: 858-677-1401 RINGLEADER DIGITAL: Suit Complains About Media Stamp Program ------------------------------------------------------------ Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that an advertising firm's Media Stamp program exploits HTML5 on iPhones and other hand-held mobile devices by collecting data that allow advertisers to track users' "browsing movements across the entire Internet," a class action claims in Federal Court. "All of this happens before Plaintiffs even have a chance to say 'no thank you.'" Manhattan-based Ringleader Digital allegedly describes its Media Stamp program as "the mobile equivalent of an online cookie," which is how advertisers typically track web users' preferences. Ringleader simply applied this concept to iPhones and other mobile devices that use HTML5 to operate their web browsers, the lawsuit claims. HTML5 contains local storage databases where Web sites can store information on the mobile devices to enhance browsing. "Defendants, specifically Ringleader Digital, found a way to exploit these databases for their own advantage," the complaint states. "When a mobile device that uses Media Stamp is accessed, Ringleader's own databases collect information from the mobile device and the Media Stamp technology assigns Plaintiff's mobile device a 'unique' identifying number," the lawsuit states. "Ringleader stores this number on its database and also uses the HTML5 storage databases on the users' hand-held mobile device to store the assigned 'unique' identifying number." The class says the ID numbers allow Ringleader, advertisers and web publishers "to track a user's browsing movements across the entire Internet and not just one particular site." The plaintiffs say Ringleader "is having little difficulty selling its product" to the owners of companies like Surfline, CNN, Travel Channel, Accuweather, Whitepages.com, Go2 Media, Medialets and Merriam-Webster's i.word.com -- all named as defendants. Though immensely useful to advertisers, Media Stamp poses "obvious privacy concerns," the class claims, because it allows web publishers and ad firms to track users' browsing habits without their permission. Even if users find the HTML5 database on their phones, they can't delete it, because it "simply recreates itself only moments later," according to the lawsuit. "[O]nce Ringleader Digital 'stamps' a mobile device, that unique number and the database assigned for that number are forever a part of the device without ever requesting the Plaintiffs' permission to do so," the complaint states. Class members are suing for privacy violations, unfair competition, and computer fraud and abuse. They demand punitive damages and an order barring the defendants from using the so- called "flash cookies" without their consent. A copy of the Complaint in Aughenbaugh, et al. v. Ringleader Digital, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/17/Ringleader.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel R. Tamez, Esq. GNAU & TAMEZ LAW GROUP, LLP 1010 Second Ave., Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-446-6736 E-mail: danieltamez@sdinjuryattorney.com - and - Majed Nachawati, Esq. Bryan Fears, Esq. FEARS NACHAWATI LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. 4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 715 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: 214-890-0711 E-mail: mn@fnlawfirm.com fears@fnlawfirm.com - and - Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq. Kenneth P. Trosclair, Esq. WILSON TROSCLAIR & LOVINS, P.L.L.C. 302 N. Market St., Suite 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214-484-1930 SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Carol Engle and Dave Johnson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04141 (N.D. Calif. September 15, 2010), bring claims against the pharmaceutical company for refusing to pay overtime compensation, failing to provide off-duty meal periods, and failing to keep accurate time records, in violation of California's wage and hour laws and related regulations. Plaintiffs are former employees of Sanofi-Aventis who worked as sales representatives, a position, plaintiffs claim, is not exempt from the overtime provision of California wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Hoyer, Esq. HOYER & ASSOCIATES Michael S. Sorgen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL S. SORGEN 240 Stockton, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 956-1360 SEMTECH CORP: Calif. Court Certifies Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has certified a plaintiff class in the matter In Re: Semtech Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:07-CV-07114-CAS, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010. In August 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain current and former officers on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from Aug. 27, 2002 until July 19, 2006. The case alleges violations of Federal securities laws in connection with the company's past stock option practices. A very similar lawsuit, filed in October 2007 by another plaintiff, was not served. In February 2008, the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for consolidation of the cases, appointment of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel. The MPERS motion was granted in late March 2008, and a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in May 2008, initiating the consolidated action with MPERS as the lead plaintiff. In December 2008, the Court granted motions to dismiss in favor of defendants Jason Carlson (former Chief Executive Officer of the company) and Mohan Maheswaran (current Chief Executive Officer of the company) regarding claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court denied all other motions of all defendants, including other motions to dismiss brought in relation to alternate allegations raised against Messrs. Carlson and Maheswaran, who remain pending as defendants in the matter. Following a May 2010 District Court ruling adverse to the company on the discoverability and production of certain materials over which the company asserts privileges and exclusions from production, the company sought and has since been granted approval from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to seek review of the District Court's ruling and order. Appellate proceedings on the evidentiary issue are proceeding. Most recently, on Aug. 23, 2010, the Court certified the plaintiff class (as proposed by plaintiffs) to be persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from Aug. 27, 2002 until July 19, 2006. Discovery proceedings are ongoing at this time, subject to certain scheduling impacts relating to the appeal of the evidentiary matter now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Semtech Corporation -- http://http://www.semtech.com/-- supplies analog and mixed-signal semiconductors for high-end consumer, computing, communications and industrial equipment. Products are designed to benefit the engineering community as well as the global community. The company is dedicated to reducing the impact it, and its products, have on the environment. Internal green programs seek to reduce waste through material and manufacturing control, use of green technology and designing for resource reduction. Publicly traded since 1967, Semtech is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol SMTC. SHORETEL INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $3-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- ShoreTel, Inc. has agreed to settle the consolidated class-action suit, In Re ShoreTel, Inc. Securities Litigation, for $3 million, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. On Jan. 16, 2008, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Watkins v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against ShoreTel, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering. On Jan. 29, 2008, a second purported stockholder class-action complaint, captioned, Kelley v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the same defendants. Both complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of those who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to its initial public offering on July 3, 2007. Both complaints purport to allege claims for violations of the federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The lawsuits were consolidated, and a consolidated amended class action complaint, captioned In Re ShoreTel, Inc. Securities Litigation, was filed on June 27, 2008. The consolidated complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of those who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to the initial public offering on July 3, 2007 and purports to allege claims for violations of the federal securities laws. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On Feb. 2, 2009, the Court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss the complaint but granted the Plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. A second consolidated amended class action complaint was subsequently filed on March 2, 2009. The consolidated action is purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to the initial public offering on July 3, 2007, purports to allege claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The company and counsel for the lead plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle in February 2010 to settle the litigation, pursuant to which, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing of any kind, the company would pay the plaintiff class $250,000 with the remaining $2.75 million funded by insurance. This agreement, which is subject to final documentation and Court approval, would resolve all the claims in the litigation. ShoreTel, Inc. -- http://www.shoretel.com/-- is the provider of brilliantly simple Unified Communication (UC) solutions based on its award-winning IP business phone system. The company offers organizations of all sizes integrated, voice, video, data, and mobile communications on an open, distributed IP architecture that helps significantly reduce the complexity and costs typically associated with other solutions. The feature-rich ShoreTel UC system offers the lowest total cost of ownership (TCO) and the highest customer satisfaction in the industry, in part because it is easy to deploy, manage, scale and use. Increasingly, companies around the world are finding a competitive edge by replacing business-as-usual with new thinking, and choosing ShoreTel to handle their integrated business communication. ShoreTel is based in Sunnyvale, California, and has regional offices in Austin, Texas, United Kingdom, Sydney, Australia and Munich, Germany. SPECTRANETICS CORP: Settles Securities Suit; Hearing on Jan. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Spectranetics Corporation has entered into a settlement to resolve the matter In re Spectranetics Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-2048-REB-KLM, according to the company's Sept. 13, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Several securities class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its executives in 2008. In 2009, these cases were consolidated into one case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and a group of investors identified as the Spectranetics Investor Group was appointed lead plaintiff. On Aug. 4, 2009, the Spectranetics Investor Group filed its consolidated class action complaint, naming the company, John Schulte, Guy Childs, Jonathan McGuire, Emile Geisenheimer, and Craig Walker as defendants. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that the defendants either failed to disclose, made false and misleading statements, and/or participated in a common plan, scheme and unlawful course of conduct involving, among other things, improper marketing, promoting and testing its products and the products of third parties for unapproved uses; payments to medical personnel in connection with these uses; withholding data from the FDA; the lack of effective regulatory compliance controls and adequate internal and financial controls; and materially inflating the company's financial results as a result of this conduct. Lead Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, legal fees and such other relief as the court may deem proper. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on Sept. 18, 2009. Various motions were subsequently filed opposing and supporting the dismissal and the Court has not yet ruled on these motions. In accordance with a Stipulation of Settlement entered into as of Sept. 7, 2010, the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have entered into a settlement of the consolidated class action. The settlement is subject to approval by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. As set forth more fully in the Stipulation, if the settlement is given final approval by the Court, among other things, (i) the claims against Spectranetics and its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and released and (ii) Spectranetics will pay $8.5 million for the benefit of the settlement class to be funded by its insurers. Fairness Hearing on January 21 The United States District Court for the District of Colorado has preliminarily approved a proposed class settlement in In Re Spectranetics Corporation Securities Litigation. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn certifies, for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, a settlement class of all Persons that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of The Spectranetics Corporation from March 16, 2007, to September 4, 2008, inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Settling Class Action Defendants and their corporate affiliates; any officers or directors of Spectranetics; members of their immediate families, and their heirs, successors, and assigns. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class pursuant to the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement to be sent to the Settlement Class. The Court authorized the Settling Class Action Plaintiff's Counsel to retain the firm of Rust Consulting as Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice and claims procedures. No later than September 24, 2010, the Claims Administrator will send the Notice and the Proof of Claim to all Settlement Class Members. Requests for Exclusions must be submitted no later than November 23, 2010. A Settlement Hearing will be held on January 21, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to determine whether the proposed settlement of the Class Action, should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate as to the members of the Settlement Class. A copy of the court's order is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100913854 The Spectranetics Corporation -- http://www.spectranetics.com/ -- develops, manufactures, markets and distributes single-use medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures within the cardiovascular system. The Company's products are sold in 40 countries throughout the world and are used to treat arterial blockages in the heart and legs as well as the removal of problematic pacemaker and defibrillator leads. The company's Vascular Intervention (VI) products include a range of peripheral and cardiac laser catheters for ablation of occluded arteries above and below the knee and within coronary arteries. The company also markets aspiration and thrombectomy catheters for the removal of thrombus and support catheters to facilitate crossing of coronary and peripheral arterial blockages. The Lead Management (LM) product line includes excimer laser sheaths and cardiac lead management accessories for the removal of problematic pacemaker and defibrillator cardiac leads. TOYS R US: Agrees to Settle Pennsylvania Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Toys "R" Us, Inc., has reached a settlement in principle to settle a consumer class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Sept. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010. On July 15, 2009, the Court granted the class plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consumer class action commenced in January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by two Internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005. Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby product manufacturers to impose, maintain or enforce minimum price agreements in violation of antitrust laws. In addition, in December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a similar action and another class action was commenced making similar allegations involving most of the same Defendants. On or about May 19, 2010, the parties in the consumer class actions reached a settlement in principle which provided that the company will contribute $17 million to the overall settlement. The parties expect to negotiate a written settlement agreement that will be subject to District Court approval. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission notified the company in April 2009 that it had opened an investigation related to the issues in those cases and to confirm our compliance with a 1998 FTC Final Order that prohibits the company from, among other things, influencing its suppliers to limit sales of products to other retailers, including price club warehouses. The company discloses that it has complied with the FTC Final Order and are cooperating with the FTC. Toys "R" Us' Inc. -- http://www.toysrus.com/-- is the world's leading specialty toy and juvenile products retailer, offering a differentiated shopping experience through its family of brands. It currently sells merchandise in more than 1,560 stores, including 848 Toys "R" Us and Babies "R" Us stores in the United States, and more than 510 international stores and 200 licensed stores in 33 countries and jurisdictions. In addition, it exclusively operates the legendary FAO Schwarz brand and sells distinctive toys in the brand's flagship store on Fifth Avenue in New York City. With its portfolio of e-commerce sites including Toysrus.com, Babiesrus.com, eToys.com, FAO.com and babyuniverse.com, it provides shoppers with a broad online selection of distinctive toy and baby products. Headquartered in Wayne, NJ, Toys "R" Us, Inc. employs approximately 70,000 associates worldwide. ********* 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 * * *