/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100929.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 29, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 192 Headlines AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend Sales Litigation in Calif. AMERICAN EQUITY: Trial in "Stephens" Re-Scheduled to November ARENA PHARMA: Faces Securities Violations Suit in California CANO PETROLEUM: Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal Ruling CHICAGO: Sued for Fraudulent Issuance of Parking Ticket DRIL-QUIP: Named as Defendant in Suits Over Deepwater Incident DYNAMEX INC: Further Certification Hearing Set for October 25 IMMERSION CORP: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Set for October 29 JUNIPER NETWORKS: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending MARCUS CORP: Goodman Files Second Amended Complaint PEABODY ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in "Comer" Suit POSTROCK ENERGY: Records Additional $400,000 Settlement Costs QWEST COMMS: Colorado Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Direct Purchaser's Suit Denied REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser's Suit Pending REDDY ICE: Continues to Defend Suit in Ontario REDDY ICE: Has Yet to Be Served Alberta Suit REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending SEARS ROEBUCK: Arguments on Motion to Dismiss or Stay Suit Heard SYNGENTA CROP: Non-Parties in Atrazine Suit Allowed Discovery TELLABS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill. WAL-MART STORES: Chamber of Commerce Files Brief With High Court * Colleges Face More Suits Following Report of Deceptive Practices ********* AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D. Calif.) (Feess, J.), which names AMC Entertainment, Inc., as a defendant, remains stayed pending the plaintiff's appeal on the denial of his renewed motion for class certification. The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. The FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be printed on electronic receipts given to customers. It imposes significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have been willful. Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the cardholder. The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case. On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America signed the FACTA reform bill. The bill specifies that if a company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the law. The legislation does not specifically address the situation where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a receipt. The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the parties reached a settlement. On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied the plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. The plaintiff has appealed the decision. The case is stayed pending the appeal. No further updates were reported in the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2010. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. Ira Spiro, Esq. SPIRO MOSS BARNESS 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 235-2468 E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com ira@spiromoss.com Representing the defendants is: David E. Novitskim, Esq. THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048 Telephone: (213) 576-8097 Facsimile: (213) 576-8080 AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Defend Sales Litigation in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Company continues to defend the matter In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The suit is a consolidated action involving several lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking class action status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by the company. The named plaintiffs in this consolidated case are Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S. Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean and George Miller. The allegations generally attack the suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over the age of 65. The plaintiffs seek recessionary and injunctive relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class members under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment and constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq. No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. American Equity Investment Life Holding Company, through its wholly-owned operating subsidiaries, is a full service underwriter fixed annuity and life insurance products, with a primary emphasis on the sale of index and fixed rate index annuities. AMERICAN EQUITY: Trial in "Stephens" Re-Scheduled to November ------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the matter Stephens v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, San Francisco, California, has been re-scheduled for November 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. The suit was filed Nov. 29, 2004. The plaintiffs in the case represent a class of individuals who are California residents and who either purchased their annuity from the company through a co-defendant marketing organization or who purchased one of a defined set of particular annuities issued by the company. The named plaintiffs in this case are: Chalys M. Stephens and John P. Stephens. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and restitution on behalf of all class members under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; compensatory damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty; other pecuniary damages under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq.; and punitive damages under common law causes of action for fraud and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Trial in this matter, originally scheduled for September 2010, has been re-scheduled for November 2010. American Equity Investment Life Holding Company, through its wholly-owned operating subsidiaries, is a full service underwriter fixed annuity and life insurance products, with a primary emphasis on the sale of index and fixed rate index annuities. ARENA PHARMA: Faces Securities Violations Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., faces a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, according to the company's Sept. 22, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit was filed on Sept. 20, 2010, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the company between May 11, 2009, and September 16, 2010, alleging that the company and certain of its employees engaged in violations of the Securities Act of 1933, or Securities Act, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange Act, and seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing oral drugs that target G protein-coupled receptors, an important class of validated drug targets, in four major therapeutic areas: cardiovascular, central nervous system, inflammatory and metabolic diseases. Arena's most advanced drug candidate, lorcaserin, is intended for weight management and has completed a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial program. Arena has filed an NDA for lorcaserin, and the FDA has assigned a PDUFA date of Oct. 22, 2010, for review of the application. Arena's wholly owned subsidiary, Arena Pharmaceuticals GmbH, has granted Eisai Inc. exclusive rights to market and distribute lorcaserin in the United States. CANO PETROLEUM: Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal Ruling ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling dismissing a suit against Cano Petroleum, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 22, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On Oct. 2, 2008, a lawsuit (08 CV 8462) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, against David W. Wehlmann; Gerald W. Haddock; Randall Boyd; Donald W. Niemiec; Robert L. Gaudin; William O. Powell, III and the underwriters of the June 26, 2008 public offering of Cano common stock ("Secondary Offering") alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Messrs. Wehlmann, Haddock, Boyd, Niemiec, Gaudin and Powell were Cano outside directors on June 26, 2008. At the defendants' request, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On July 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added as defendants Cano, Cano's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Jeff Johnson, Cano's former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Morris B. "Sam" Smith, Cano's current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Ben Daitch, Cano's Vice President and Principal Accounting Officer, Michael Ricketts and Cano's former Senior Vice President of Engineering and Operations, Patrick McKinney, and dismissed Gerald W. Haddock, a former director of Cano, as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus for the Secondary Offering contained statements regarding Cano's proved reserve amounts and standards that were materially false and overstated Cano's proved reserves. The plaintiff is seeking to certify the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit and is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. On July 27, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit. On Dec. 3, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted motions to dismiss all claims brought by the plaintiffs. On Dec. 18, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 5, 2010, Cano filed its appellate brief to support its position. On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their response brief. On Aug. 4, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas of all claims by the plaintiffs. By affirming the decision of the lower court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and thus found merit in dismissing the lawsuit. Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com/-- is an independent Texas-based energy producer with properties in the mid-continent region of the United States. Cano's primary focus is on increasing domestic production from proven fields using enhanced recovery methods. CHICAGO: Sued for Fraudulent Issuance of Parking Ticket ------------------------------------------------------- Innocent Obi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 2010-L-010850 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. September 23, 2010), brings charges against Officer J. Jackson and the revenue department of the City of Chicago, for the fraudulent and illegal issuance of a parking ticket to the vehicle plaintiff allegedly parked on a no-parking zone along Midway Plaisance Drive in the west direction off Cottage Grove on July 26, 2010, despite the absence of a sign stating that Park/Standing was prohibited at the site of the alleged parking violation. Rather, the photos taken by the plaintiff show a road sign showing direction to drive only, but no sign prohibiting parking or standing at any time. Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, demands a trial by jury. Mr. Obi can be reached at: Innocent Obi P.O. Box 490122 Chicago, IL 60649 Telephone: (773) 841-6166 DRIL-QUIP: Named as Defendant in Suits Over Deepwater Incident -------------------------------------------------------------- Dril-Quip, Inc., has been named as a defendant in six class-action lawsuits in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. On April 22, 2010, a deepwater Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known as the Deepwater Horizon that was operated by BP Exploration & Production, Inc., sank after an explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. Crude oil flowing from the well site has spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and has reached the United States Gulf Coast. Efforts to contain the flow of hydrocarbons from the well are being led by the United States government and by BP and its affiliates. In addition, there were eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result of the explosion and fire. The cause of the explosion, fire, and resulting oil spill is being investigated by numerous industry participants, governmental agencies, and Congressional committees. The company is a party to an ongoing contract with an affiliate of BP to supply wellhead systems in connection with BP's Gulf of Mexico operations, and the company's wellhead and certain of its other equipment were in use on the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the incident. The company has been named along with other unaffiliated defendants in six class-action lawsuits and three other lawsuits that allege pollution damage claims, personal injuries and/or business losses arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. These actions were filed against the company between May 11, 2010 and July 21, 2010 in federal courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Northern, Middle and Southern Districts of Florida and in state court in Mobile County, Alabama. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, violation of state and federal environmental and other laws and regulations, negligence, gross negligence, strict liability and/or property damages and generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages. The company has retained counsel and is investigating and evaluating the claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted, and its respective defenses to all of these claims. Dril-Quip is a leading manufacturer of highly engineered offshore drilling and production equipment which is well suited for use in deepwater, harsh environment and severe service applications. DYNAMEX INC: Further Certification Hearing Set for October 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- A further certification hearing in an amended complaint against Dynamex, Inc., is set for Oct. 25, 2010, according to the company's Sept. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010. On April 15, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the company by a former independent contractor in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the company unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees, and asserting, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other benefits and the obligation of the Company to pay employer payroll taxes under federal and state law. In early February 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which among other matters, added an additional named Plaintiff. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in June 2009, seeking the certification of a Class with four Subclasses, each dependent on the type of service rendered by the independent contractor and the weight of the vehicle provided by the independent contractor. On July 28, 2009, the Court granted the Motion. The four subclasses were each subject to between four and eight exclusions. In January 2010, the Parties agreed to a process whereby the Court modified its earlier Order granting certification of a Class to clarify that the earlier Order "conditionally" granted Certification. The Order initiated a process whereby a questionnaire was to be sent by an impartial Class Administrator to each potential member of the Class to gather information. As a part of the process, the Court would dismiss from the Class those individuals who failed to respond to the questionnaire within the allotted time. Incomplete or deficient questionnaires could be cured through written or telephonic inquiry by the Class Administrator. Approximately 260 questionnaires were timely returned. Further clarification and additional information has been requested from approximately 120 of the individuals returning the questionnaires with a due date of Aug. 12, 2010. A further certification hearing will be held on Oct. 25, 2010, and a tentative trial date has been set for April 4, 2011. Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of same- day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada. Through its network of business centers, the company provides same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing its ground couriers. IMMERSION CORP: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Set for October 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- The hearing on Immersion Corporation's motion to dismiss the matter In re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation, is set for Oct. 29, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state court against the company and certain current and former Immersion directors and officers. On Sept. 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. Over the following five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed. One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed. The securities class action complaints name the company and certain current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements. The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly sustained by the purported class members. On Dec. 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. Following the company's restatement of its financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on June 15, 2010. The hearing on defendants' motion is scheduled for Oct. 29, 2010. Immersion Corporation -- http://www.immersion.com/-- is the leading innovator in haptics technology; the company's touch feedback solutions deliver a more compelling sense of the digital world. Using Immersion's high-fidelity haptic systems, partners can transform user experiences with unique and customizable touch feedback effects; excite the senses in games, videos and music; restore "mechanical" feel by providing intuitive and unmistakable confirmation; improve safety by overcoming distractions while driving or performing a medical procedure; and expand usability when audio and visual feedback are ineffective. Immersion's TouchSense technology provides haptics in mobile phone, automotive, gaming, medical and consumer electronics products from world-class companies. With over 900 issued or pending patents in the U.S. and other countries, Immersion helps bring the digital universe to life. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval of the settlement agreement resolving a consolidated action against Juniper Networks, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 14, 2006, and Aug. 29, 2006, two purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of California against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors. On Nov. 20, 2006, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04327-JW, and appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on Jan. 12, 2007, and filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 9, 2007. The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock option grants. The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly-traded securities from July 12, 2001, through and including Aug. 10, 2006. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in an unspecified amount. On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007. On March 31, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The order dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim to the extent it was based on challenged statements made before July 14, 2001. The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu. The order upheld all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint. On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from July 11, 2003 to Aug. 10, 2006 inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including those who received or acquired Juniper Networks' common stock issued pursuant to the registration statement on SEC Form S-4, dated March 10, 2004, for the company's merger with NetScreen Technologies Inc.; and purchasers of Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due June 15, 2008 issued pursuant to a registration statement on SEC Form S-3 dated Nov. 20, 2003. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and the current and former officers and directors of the company, their immediate families, their heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity controlled by any such person. On Feb. 5, 2010, the company and the lead plaintiffs entered into an agreement in principle to settle the claims against the company and each of the company's current and former officers and directors. The settlement is contingent upon approval by the Boards of Trustees of the lead plaintiffs and approval by the Court. Under the proposed settlement, the claims against the company and its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a $169.0 million cash payment by the company. The company considers the proposed payment to be probable and reasonably estimable and, therefore, recorded the cash settlement amount as a pre-tax operating expense in its consolidated statement of operations for the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. On April 12, 2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and a fairness hearing was scheduled for Aug. 30, 2010, to consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.. Juniper Networks, Inc. -- http://www.juniper.net/-- designs, develops and sells products and services that together provide its customers with network infrastructure that creates responsive and trusted environments for accelerating the deployment of services and applications over a single network. The company serves the networking requirements of global service providers, enterprises and public sector organizations, which view the network to their success. The company offers a product portfolio, which spans routing, switching, security, application acceleration, identity policy and control, and management designed to provide performance, choice and flexibility. The company operations are organized into two segments: infrastructure and service layer technologies (SLT). The company's infrastructure segment offers scalable routing and switching products that are used to control and direct network traffic from the core, through the edge, aggregation and the customer premise equipment level. MARCUS CORP: Goodman Files Second Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------- Two of The Marcus Corporation's subsidiaries continue to face a second amended class action complaint in Nevada, according to the company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 27, 2010. On Dec. 5, 2008, a class action complaint captioned Goodman, et al. v. Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, Case No. 09-CV-957, was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada for Clark County against Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, one of the company's subsidiaries. On April 30, 2009, Platinum LLC was served with a summons and a copy of an amended complaint. The amended complaint also named another one of the company's subsidiaries, Marcus Management LV, as a defendant. Subsequently, Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, where it is currently pending. The amended complaint in Goodman seeks an unspecified amount of damages and alleges violations of federal and Nevada law, and that Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV made various representations in connection with the Platinum Hotel & Spa development in Las Vegas, Nevada. On June 29, 2009, both Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. On March 29, 2010, the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, and dismissed most of the claims against Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV without prejudice. On April 28, 2010, Goodman filed a second amended complaint, which Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV have answered, in part, and moved to dismiss, in part. The parties are currently briefing the motion to dismiss. The Marcus Corporation -- http://www.marcuscorp.com/-- is a leader in the lodging and entertainment industries. The Marcus Corporation's movie theatre division, Marcus Theatres(R), currently owns or manages 668 screens at 54 locations in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and Ohio, and one family entertainment center in Wisconsin. The company's lodging division, Marcus Hotels and Resorts, owns or manages 19 hotels, resorts and other properties in ten states. PEABODY ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in "Comer" Suit --------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corp. remains a defendant in the suit styled Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil Co., et al., according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. In April 2006, residents and owners of land and property along the Mississippi Gulf coast filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi against more than 45 oil, chemical, utility and coal companies, including the company. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants' greenhouse gas emissions "were a proximate and direct cause of the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina," and sought damages based on several legal theories. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. In August 2007, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the political question doctrine and for lack of standing. In October 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) reversed in part the decision of the trial court, holding that the plaintiffs had standing to assert their public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence claims. The court held that plaintiffs did not satisfy the prudential standing requirement for their unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims and dismissed those claims and ordered that the case be remanded to the district court for further proceedings. In March 2010, the Fifth Circuit vacated the panel opinion and ordered a hearing en banc before the full Fifth Circuit to consider plaintiffs' appeal. After the en banc court was properly constituted, a recusal by one of the judges resulted in the en banc court losing its quorum. On May 28, 2010, the Fifth Circuit issued an order indicating that the court had no authority to reinstate the panel decision and directing the clerk to dismiss the appeal. Peabody Energy Corp. is the world's largest private-sector coal company and a global leader in clean coal solutions. With 2009 sales of 244 million tons and $6 billion in revenues, Peabody fuels 10% of U.S. power and 2% of worldwide electricity. POSTROCK ENERGY: Records Additional $400,000 Settlement Costs ------------------------------------------------------------- PostRock Energy Corporation reports that in addition to the $1,000,000 it agrees to contribute to a settlement resolving pending securities class actions, first-filed derivative lawsuit, and two individual securities actions pending against the company and its current and former officers and directors, it has recorded an additional $400,000 in additional settlement costs, according to its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Four putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma naming QRCP, QELP and Quest Energy GP, LLC, the general partner of the predecessor of QELP and certain of their then current and former officers and directors as defendants. The complaints were filed by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves and other stockholders who purchased QRCP common stock between May 2, 2005, and August 25, 2008, and QELP common units between Nov. 7, 2007, and Aug. 25, 2008. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements and concealing material facts concerning certain unauthorized transfers of funds from subsidiaries of QRCP to entities controlled by QRCP's former chief executive officer, Mr. Jerry D. Cash. The complaints also allege that, as a result of these actions, QRCP's stock price and the unit price of QELP was artificially inflated during the class period. On December 29, 2008, the court consolidated these complaints as Michael Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Energy Partners LP, Quest Energy GP LLC, Quest Resource Corporation, Jerry Cash, and David E. Grose, Case No. 08-cv-936-M, in the Western District of Oklahoma. On September 24, 2009, the court appointed lead the plaintiffs for each of the QRCP class and the QELP class. The lead plaintiffs must file a consolidated amended complaint within 60 days after being appointed. On October 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial modification of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 discovery stay, which the defendants opposed and which the court denied on December 15, 2009. On November 4, 2009, the court granted the lead plaintiffs' unopposed request to file separate consolidated amended complaints. The court ordered that all pleadings and filings for the QELP class be filed under Friedman v. Quest Energy Partners, LP, et al., case no. 08-cv-936-M, and all pleadings and filings for the QRCP class be filed under Jents v. Quest Resource Corporation, et al., case no. 08-cv-968-M. The QELP lead the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on November 10, 2009. The consolidated complaint names as additional defendants David C. Lawler, Gary Pittman, Mark Stansberry, Murrell Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, and Eide Bailly LLP. The QRCP lead the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 7, 2009, which names Murrell, Hall, McIntosh & Co. PLLP, Eide Bailly LLP, and various former QRCP directors as additional defendants. On December 23, 2009, QRCP and David C. Lawler filed a motion to dismiss the Friedman complaint, and on December 28, 2009, QELP, QEGP, Gary Pittman and Mark Stansberry filed a motion to dismiss the Friedman complaint. On Jan. 21, 2010, QRCP and the individual director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Jents complaint. No response to the motion to dismiss has yet been filed in either proceeding. On February 2, 2010, mediation was held among the parties. A second round of the mediation was held on April 2, 2010. An agreement to settle all of the federal securities lawsuits has been reached in principle. The settlement is subject to court approval. On July 9, 2010, a stipulation of settlement was filed in the consolidated action. On July 22, 2010 a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the court. On July 23, 2010, an objection to the motion was filed by the Enders derivative the plaintiff. However, Enders has now agreed to withdraw that objection. The Company has agreed to contribute $1 million to the proposed settlement of the lawsuits and recorded an additional $400,000 for anticipated additional settlement costs. While the Company has recorded an accrual for these amounts in the first quarter of 2010, there can be no assurance that final approval of the settlement will be granted by the court or that the final settlement amount will equal the amount of the accrual. PostRock Energy Corporation -- http://www.pstr.com/-- is a vertically integrated independent energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, production and transportation of oil and natural gas in the Cherokee Basin, the Appalachian Basin and Central Oklahoma. PostRock has over 2,800 wells and nearly 2,200 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines in the Cherokee Basin. The company also owns and operates nearly 400 natural gas and oil producing wells and undeveloped acreage in the Appalachian Basin of the northeastern United States and more than 1,100 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipelines in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri. QWEST COMMS: Colorado Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on the ruling dismissing a suit against Qwest Communications International Inc., according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of the company's retirees was brought against the company, the Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal district court in Colorado in connection with the company's decision to reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000 benefit. The action was filed on March 30, 2007. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company and other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance benefit at the levels in place before we decided to reduce them. Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to previous levels and certain equitable relief. The district court ruled in the company's favor on the central issue of whether we properly reserved the company's right to reduce the life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to assert additional claims. In 2009, the court dismissed or granted summary judgment to the company on all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which motion was denied by the court on July 22, 2010. The plaintiffs had until late August 2010 to file an appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Qwest Communications International Inc. -- http://www.qwest.com/ -- provides data, Internet, video and voice services. The company operates its business in the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Qwest operates in three segments: business markets, mass markets and wholesale markets. The company's products and services are provided using its telecommunications network, which consists of voice and data switches, copper cables, fiber optic broadband cables and other equipment. The majority of the company's network is located in its local service area. Within its local service area, Qwest's network serves approximately 10.3 million access lines in 14 states and forms a portion of the public switched telephone network (PSTN). REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Direct Purchaser's Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has denied Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the direct purchaser claims in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into possible antitrust violations in the packaged ice industry. In March 2008, the company and certain of its employees, including members of its management, received subpoenas issued by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Michigan seeking documents and information in connection with an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the packaged ice industry. Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the DOJ had instituted an investigation of the packaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits, were filed against the company, Reddy Ice Corporation, Home City Ice Company, Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Arctic Glacier, Inc. and Arctic Glacier International, Inc., in various federal courts in multiple jurisdictions alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages and injunctive relief. Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have been transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On June 1, 2009, the Court appointed interim lead and liaison counsel for the putative direct purchaser classes. On Sept. 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff for the putative direct purchaser class filed a consolidated amended complaint. The company and Arctic Glacier filed motions to dismiss the direct purchaser complaint. The motions by the company and Arctic Glacier to dismiss the direct purchaser claims were denied by the Court on July 1, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Home City entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs. A hearing to consider preliminary approval of Home City's settlement with the direct purchasers was set for Aug. 26, 2010. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and distribute packaged ice products. The company consists of a single operating segment. REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser's Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser complaint arising out of the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into possible antitrust violations in the packaged ice industry, is pending In March 2008, the company and certain of its employees, including members of its management, received subpoenas issued by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Michigan seeking documents and information in connection with an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the packaged ice industry. Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the DOJ had instituted an investigation of the packaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits, were filed against the company, Reddy Ice Corporation, Home City Ice Company, Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Arctic Glacier, Inc. and Arctic Glacier International, Inc., in various federal courts in multiple jurisdictions alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages and injunctive relief. Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have been transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On June 1, 2009, the Court appointed interim lead and liaison counsel for the putative indirect purchaser class. On Sept. 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff for the putative indirect purchaser class filed a consolidated amended complaint. The company and Arctic Glacier filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Home City also filed a motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser. The motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser complaint are pending, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and distribute packaged ice products. The company consists of a single operating segment. REDDY ICE: Continues to Defend Suit in Ontario ---------------------------------------------- Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., defends a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada. On March 1, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim was filed against the company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada, alleging violations of Part VI of the Competition Act and seeking general damages, punitive and exemplary damages, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs. A case conference regarding this matter was held on June 9, 2010. In that case conference, a schedule was set for proceedings relating to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Class, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and distribute packaged ice products. The company consists of a single operating segment. REDDY ICE: Has Yet to Be Served Alberta Suit -------------------------------------------- Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., has yet to be served the putative class action filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. On March 8, 2010, a putative class action Statement of Claim was filed against the Company in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, in Canada, alleging violations of Part VI of the Competition Act and seeking general damages, special and pecuniary damages, punitive and exemplary damages, interest and costs. This Statement of Claim has yet not been served on the company, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and distribute packaged ice products. The company consists of a single operating segment. REDDY ICE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws, remains pending. Beginning on Aug. 8, 2008, purported class action complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the company and certain of its current or former senior officers. The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that the defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence of, and the company's alleged participation in, an alleged antitrust conspiracy in the packaged ice industry. The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of various alleged classes of purchasers of the company's common stock. On July 17, 2009, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and interim lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on Nov. 2, 2009. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 17, 2009. Plaintiffs filed a response to that motion to dismiss on Jan. 18, 2010, and the company filed a reply in support of the motion on Feb. 17, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation, manufacture and distribute packaged ice products. The company consists of a single operating segment. SEARS ROEBUCK: Arguments on Motion to Dismiss or Stay Suit Heard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports attorneys from both sides of a proposed Madison County class action over a malfunctioning washing machine haggled over the case's similarity to a pending federal case in California on Friday. Sears Roebuck & Co. attorney Michael Williams argued that the younger Illinois suit led by lead plaintiff Therese Dalla Riva was a "second bite at the apple," for her team of attorneys. Meanwhile Lori Andrus, Esq., who's team filed both the California case and Dalla Riva's, told Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla that there were enough differences between the two to warrant Ms. Dalla Riva's suit continuing. Sears had moved to stay or dismiss Ms. Dalla Riva's suit pending the outcome of a potential nationwide class action filed last year by lead plaintiff Renee Tietsworth in the U.S. Northern District of California. After hearing arguments Friday morning, Judge Hylla told both parties to prepare proposed orders and that he was taking the matter under advisement. Ms. Dalla Riva claims that her Kenmore Elite Oasis automatic washing machines had defective electronic control boards that cause the machines to malfunction. The suit includes warranty, consumer fraud and safety claims, including those that the washer potentially explodes. Ms. Dalla Riva claims the company deliberately concealed the defects from her and a class of Illinois washing machine purchasers. Mr. Williams told Judge Hylla Friday that the Dalla Riva suit and Tietsworth suit alleged virtually the same claims and that an Illinois sub-class could easily be added to the California federal case helmed by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel. Mr. Williams pointed to discovery in the federal case where Sears has turned over all of its databases including those dealing with Illinois. The defense attorney pointed out several times Ms. Andrus' involvement in the two cases, calling the two suits harassment and were just another attempt by Andrus and her team to sustain claims that Judge Fogel had thrown out of the California suit. He told Judge Hylla that the Illinois class could seek remedy in the federal case and what ever claims were not addressed by it could be taken up in Illinois courts after the end of the Tietsworth case. "There is no indication there that the judge is unfair and that he can't apply Illinois law to Illinois claims," Mr. Williams said of Judge Fogel. "You've got some lawyers calling the shots and they didn't get what they wanted there so they've come here because they want a second shot here." Judge Hylla questioned Mr. Williams about the differences between the suit, particularly the "exploding washing machine" claims. "We think the safety issue is really a red herring," Mr. Williams replied. "All we have are regurgitated reports from the Internet." Ms. Andrus, in her argument, dismissed the similarities in the two cases, instead focusing on the distinct Illinois claims, including the fear of the possible washer explosion. Mr. Andrus told Judge Hylla the explosions were not rumors and that one washer that did blow up was sitting in storage in Nebraska. Ms. Andrus said that although its owner had dropped out of the Tietsworth case, that evidence coupled with the uniqueness of the Illinois claims should allow Ms. Dalla Riva's suit to go forward. "These are not made up claims," Ms. Andrus said. Ms. Andrus told Judge Hylla that the Illinois court could deprive Illinois residents of their recovery because Judge Fogel would not be bound to honor the Illinois claims in his court and Sears would potentially fight their inclusion. Judge Hylla questioned Mr. Williams on that point. "It does seem to me that these nationwide defendants are always in here arguing against a nationwide class," Judge Hylla said. Mr. Williams told Judge Hylla that Judge Fogel, as a federal judge, could certify a nationwide class, two state classes or take a different direction to work out the claims of the various states' residents. Mark Goldenberg, Ms. Andrus' co-counsel, told Judge Hylla his client preferred to stay in Illinois, all similarities and discovery overlap aside. "We don't want to go try an Illinois case . . . in California," Mr. Goldenberg said. Therese Dalla Riva's husband, Dr. James Dalla Riva, won a medical malpractice case tried before Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian earlier this year. Ms. Andrus is from the San Francisco firm of Andrus Anderson LLP. Mr. Williams is from the Denver firm of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP. Stephen Strauss, Esq., of Bryan Cave LLP of St. Louis also represents Sears. The Dalla Riva suit is Madison case number 10-L-203. The Tietsworth federal case is case number 5:09-cv-00288-JF. SYNGENTA CROP: Non-Parties in Atrazine Suit Allowed Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Recorder, reports Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder will allow plaintiffs in one of a series of proposed class actions against a maker of the herbicide atrazine to discover evidence among non-parties to the litigation. In a Sept. 22 order, Judge Crowder wrote that her order seeks to balance the third parties' First Amendment rights with what is discoverable under Illinois law. Overall, the order allows the plaintiffs, including Holiday Shores Sanitation District and various Illinois municipalities, to discover evidence that relates to exchanges between non-parties and defendant Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. For example, as to the Heartland Institute, an agricultural non- profit organization, Judge Crowder ruled that information related to Syngenta's relationship to the organization was discoverable. Information about other members of the group is not discoverable at this time, according to the order. Judge Crowder also granted limited discovery with respect to Don Coursey, a professor at the University of Chicago who studies atrazine, the university, the Illinois Farm Bureau and other groups. Judge Crowder entered the ruling on various objections raised by non-parties to the suit two days before a proposed hearing in the case. Those parties, trade groups and others objected to discovery requests in the case and had moved to have them quashed. That hearing, set for Sept. 24 and slated to deal with dueling motions to compel, was canceled by agreement. Holiday Shores and the other named plaintiffs proposes to lead Illinois water providers in six class actions against the makers and distributors of atrazine and atrazine containing products. The plaintiffs allege the herbicide runs off farm fields and contaminates their water supplies. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that atrazine up to three parts per billion is safe in drinking water, the suits claim smaller amounts cause unspecified human health problems. The plaintiffs had been seeking depositions and other discovery from third parties including the University of Chicago, the Illinois Farm Bureau and chemical trade groups. They were joined in their objections to the discovery requests by Syngenta. The case at issue has progressed ahead of the other suits because it is the primary maker of atrazine. The discovery dispute is one of a series in the six year-old case. Judge Crowder heard arguments on the matter Aug. 25. Judge Crowder dismissed earlier arguments by the plaintiffs that the third parties had to file privilege logs with the court in order to stop the discovery. Judge Crowder noted that her order is not intended to be the final word on discovery matters in the case. "Again, this court is well aware that discovery disputes may continue and be ongoing," the order reads. "The court has attempted to balance the need for discovery with the First Amendment rights of the non-parties looking at the specific counts. This order is not intended to be a final and definitive statement as to any future discovery issue." Upon the entry of the non-party order, the Syngenta case joined the other atrazine cases under the watch of Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, Judge Stack originally helmed all of the atrazine cases. The suits were transferred to Judge Crowder last year after Judge Stack announced his retirement plans. Judge Stack will leave the bench later this year. However, when Judge Crowder took up Judge Stack's former asbestos docket last month, Judge Stack took over her civil docket, including the atrazine cases. Kurtis Reeg, Esq., represents Syngenta. Stephen Tillery, Esq., represents the plaintiffs. Edward Dwyer, Esq., and Jennifer Martin, Esq., of Hodge Dwyer & Driver of Springfield represent both the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association and Chemical Council of Illinois. Daniel Donahue, Esq., and others represent Mr. Coursey and the Heartland Institute. Mary Lamb, Esq., represents the University of Chicago. V Fluence, another third party in the suit, is represented by Larry Helper, Esq. Christopher Byron, Esq., represents the Farm Bureau. The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710. The atrazine suits are Madison case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713. TELLABS INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Tellabs, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action complaint alleging violation of federal securities laws, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2010. On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs; Michael Birck, Chairman of the Board of Tellabs; and Richard Notebaert, former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs. Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on December 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of the Company's current or former officers and directors. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class period -- December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001 -- the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the company's financial statements. Furthermore, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities laws by trading the company's securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about the company pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief. On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint, while affording the plaintiffs an opportunity to replead. On July 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and Notebaert, and many, although not all, of the other previously named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class action complaint. The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action complaint. On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on January 21, 2005. On January 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for further proceedings. On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered the plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the district court. On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining claims. On October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision. On January 5, 2007, the defendants' petition was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. On November 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded case. On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On February 24, 2009, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The case is now proceeding in the district court and discovery is ongoing. A trial date has not yet been set. Tellabs, Inc. -- http://www.tellabs.com/-- is engaged in designing and marketing equipment and services to communications customers worldwide. The company's products and services enable its customers to deliver wireline and wireless voice, data and video services to business and residential customers. It sells its products domestically and internationally through its field sales force and distributors/partners. The company's customers are primarily communication services providers, including local exchange carriers (LECs); national post, telephone and telegraph (PTT) administrators, wireless service providers, multiple system operators (MSOs), and competitive service providers (CSPs). Its customer base also includes distributors, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), system integrators and government agencies. The company operates in three segments: Broadband, Transport and Services. WAL-MART STORES: Chamber of Commerce Files Brief With High Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed Friday an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's erroneous decision to certify the largest employment class action in history. The case is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. "This is the most important class action case facing the Court in over a decade," said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center, the Chamber's public policy law firm. "The Ninth Circuit radically lowered the standards for certifying blockbuster class actions. Unless the Court steps in to undo the mess created by the Ninth Circuit, the West Coast will become a haven for bet-the-business class actions." In the case, the plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of 1.5 million current and former Wal-Mart employees alleging gender bias in pay and promotions. In order to avoid more rigorous class certification standards, the plaintiffs sought class action status under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2), which prescribes the rules for class actions seeking injunctive relief rather than money damages. However, the plaintiffs in the case are seeking billions of dollars in damages in addition to their request for injunctive relief. In a contentious 6-5 ruling earlier this year, a narrowly divided Ninth Circuit adopted a loose approach to class certification that effectively barred Wal-Mart from presenting individualized evidence to prove it had complied with the law. The Chamber's brief asks the Supreme Court to review that ruling and clarify when a class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2). This is the Chamber's sixth amicus brief in the case since a federal district judge in 2004 first allowed the lawsuit to proceed as a class action. "The billion-dollar question in the case is, do defendants have a right to present all the available evidence in their defense regardless of whether a case is brought under the guise of a class action," said Mr. Conrad. "The Ninth Circuit has opened the door to nothing less than court-sanctioned shakedowns. By denying businesses their fundamental right to defend themselves in court, the Ninth Circuit leaves them with a harsh choice: either settle meritless lawsuits, or potentially face financial ruin." * Colleges Face More Suits Following Report of Deceptive Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Beth Marklein, writing for USA TODAY, reports disgruntled students, employees and shareholders have filed a flurry of lawsuits against for-profit colleges since a federal investigation last month found deceptive practices at 15 campuses. The Government Accountability Office report was released Aug. 4, and class-action lawsuits have now been filed in California, Colorado, Arkansas and Utah by former students and employees, who argue in most cases that a school lied to them or misled them. Some companies, including the University of Phoenix and Westwood College, closed campuses or launched internal investigations after the release of the report, which found that admissions officials in four cases encouraged applicants to commit fraud by lying on financial aid forms. Shareholders have filed class-action lawsuits against at least five schools, noting the effect of the report on stock prices and citing securities fraud. Lawsuits alleging deception at for-profit colleges are not new. Last year, the parent companies of the University of Phoenix and Westwood agreed to pay the federal government millions of dollars each to settle separate false-claims lawsuits. In both cases, the schools admitted no wrongdoing. John McKernan, chairman of Education Management Corp., which operates about 95 schools in 31 states, including Argosy University, says lawsuits are part of the territory. "Statistically, the bigger you get, the more (complaints) you're going to have." Tampa lawyer Jillian Estes, whose firm has represented students in several class-action suits against for-profits, including Westwood College, says she hopes the federal scrutiny will bolster students' cases. "We've been trying to raise this flag for so long," she says. "It helps for judges to realize this isn't just some kids who are a little unhappy, but a nationwide systemic problem." Westwood in March sued Estes and her law firm for defamation. A Texas agency has threatened to revoke or deny one company's licenses to operate three for-profit campuses there. One college received a similar warning in Wisconsin. Still, tens of thousands of students say for-profit colleges are their best option. An unprecedented 91,000 public comments were submitted in response to a proposal that would deny federal student aid to for-profit colleges whose graduates don't earn enough to pay back student loans. The Education Department estimates one-third or more came from students worried that their college would close if the proposal is adopted. ********* 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 * * *