/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101007.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 7, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 198 Headlines ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Faces "Eliason" Suit Over Siding Products BRIDGEPORT FIRE: Superior Ct. Vacates Incentive Fees Order CHARLES SCHWAB: Ct. Directs Class Counsel to Contact Late Opt-Outs CHINESE DAILY NEWS: 9th Cir. Affirms Reporters' FLSA Claims CKE RESTAURANTS: Files Stipulation to Settle Delaware Suit CKE RESTAURANTS: California Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Suit COMMUNITY NATIONAL: Fla. Ct. Dismisses Ex-Employees' ERISA Suit DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims FORCE PROTECTION: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit GSI GROUP: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Hamel" Securities Suit GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Braun" Suit in New Hampshire INERGY LP: Hearing on Plaintiff's Injunction Motion on Oct. 22 LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Approval of Class Suit Settlement Pending MF GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Motion to Replead MONSANTO CO: Missouri Ct. Denies Bid to Consolidate Lawsuits MTV NETWORKS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages NEIMAN MARCUS: Defends Complaint in San Francisco County ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Remains Party to Suits Over Occupancy Taxes PHILIP MORRIS: Asks Ill. Cir. Ct. to Subpoena Golin Harris SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Billing Practices THOR INDUSTRIES: Plaintiff Agrees to Voluntarily Dismiss Case WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Overdraft Fees ********* ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Faces "Eliason" Suit Over Siding Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Materials, LLC, faces a suit captioned Eliason v. Gentek Building Prods., Inc., relating to manufactured steel and aluminum siding products, according to the company's Sept. 29, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission On Sept. 20, 2010, the company and Gentek Building Products, Inc. were named as defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint was filed by three individual plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class of owners of steel and aluminum siding products manufactured by Associated Materials and Gentek or their predecessors. The plaintiffs assert a breach of express and implied warranty, along with related causes of action, claiming that an unspecified defect in the siding causes paint to peel off the metal and that Associated Materials and Gentek have failed adequately to honor their warranty obligations to repair, replace or refinish the defective siding. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, restitution of monies paid to the defendants and an injunction against the claimed unlawful practices, together with attorneys' fees, costs and interest. As this action was only very recently filed, no proceedings have yet occurred in this case. Associated Materials, LLC -- http://www.associatedmaterials.com/ -- is a vertically integrated manufacturer and distributor of exterior residential building products in the United States and Canada. The company's core products include vinyl windows, vinyl siding, aluminum and steel siding, and accessories. The company's products are marketed on a wholesale basis to more than 50,000 independent contractors through a network of 119 company- operated supply centers and approximately 250 independent distributors across the U.S. and Canada. The company's brand names include Alside(R), Revere(R) and Gentek(R). BRIDGEPORT FIRE: Superior Ct. Vacates Incentive Fees Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In In Re: Bridgeport Fire Litigation, 2010 PA. Super 181, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County on September 4, 2009, denying motions by Professional Flooring Company, Inc., Limerick Carpet & Flooring, Inc., Rose Line, Inc. and Renu Electronics, Inc., for incentive fees, and the order entered on September 10, 2009, authorizing compensation for the court-appointed Claims Administrator. Judges Cheryl Lynn Allen and Anne E. Lazarus and Retired Senior Judge Robert A. Freedberg conclude that Professional Flooring, et al., lacked standing to file their own motion for incentive payments and that the trial court erred in addressing the merits thereof, while simultaneously and without explanation ignoring the motion properly filed by class counsel. The court in a class action appoints class representatives and class counsel for a reason, i.e., so that the action may proceed in an orderly manner without hundreds, or even thousands, of individual plaintiffs inundating the court with pleadings. "In contrast to the scenario presented with regard to the recusal motion, we can ascertain no pressing reason to create an exception to the general practice of limiting the filing of pleadings to class representatives, by and through class counsel. The proper course of action would have been for the trial court to strike [Professional Flooring et al.'s] motion and rule on the merits of class counsel's motion (after, of course, ruling on the recusal motion)," Judge Lazarus wrote. The Superior Court remands the case for further proceedings. This matter forms a small part of the class action litigation that arose from the destruction by fire on May 15, 2001 of a large, multi-unit industrial complex known as the Continental Business Center in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania. Professional Flooring et al. are businesses that suffered losses in the fire and are the original plaintiffs, having filed a putative class action suit against the owners and managers of the CBC nine days after the fire occurred. On April 14, 2003, Judge Steven T. O'Neill certified the class and appointed Professional Flooring et al. as representative plaintiffs of the class. He also appointed the law firms of Kline & Specter, P.C. and High Swartz LLP as class counsel. A partial settlement was reached on February 19, 2008, for $30,000,000. The remaining two defendants subsequently agreed to settlements totaling $5,000,000. Thereafter, class counsel distributed a Notice of Settlement and Judge O'Neill held a Fairness Hearing on June 23, 2008. Finally, on July 8, 2008, the court approved the settlement, totaling $35,000,000, and appointed Gary S. Silow, Esq., as Claims Administrator. The Claims Administrator was tasked with scrutinizing the claims of each claimant to determine what amount, if any, each would receive from the gross settlement proceeds. On August 7, 2009, Mr. Silow submitted his report to Judge O'Neill. On September 1, 2009, class counsel filed a motion for approval of compensation for Mr. Silow, which the court approved by order docketed on September 10, 2009 and is one of the two orders on appeal. The other order was filed on September 4, 2009 and denied a motion for incentive payments filed by Attorney Haviland on behalf of Professional Flooring et al. Judge O'Neill denied that motion based upon his belief that Attorney Haviland lacked standing to file such a motion on behalf of the class representatives, as he is not court-appointed class counsel. Attorney Haviland, on behalf of Professional Flooring et al., filed a motion for recusal alleging bias on the part of Judge O'Neill against Professional Flooring et al. The motion was filed on May 14, 2009 and has yet to be disposed of. A copy of the Court's opinion is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inpaco20100928529 CHARLES SCHWAB: Ct. Directs Class Counsel to Contact Late Opt-Outs ------------------------------------------------------------------ In In Re: Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation, case no. C 08-01510 (N.D. Calif., September 27, 2010), the Hon. William Alsup issued an ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND LETTERS FROM CLASS MEMBERS. On September 22, 2010, the Court held a fairness hearing on the federal securities and California class settlements reached between defendants The Charles Schwab Corporation, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., Schwab Investments, and certain individual defendants, and lead plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in this certified class action alleging that defendants' management of, disclosures concerning, accounting for, and marketing and sales of the YieldPlus Fund violated state and federal law. On the eve of the hearing, defendants submitted a short brief concerning a statement in plaintiffs' reply in support of final approval of the class settlement agreements, to the effect that plaintiffs plan to appeal the scope of certification of the California class. Defendants stated that this is barred by the terms of the releases and proposed judgments agreed to in the class settlements. Plaintiffs responded on the day of (prior to) the hearing. They countered that they specifically carved out of the release language claims brought under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. These issues were addressed by the parties at the hearing, but it was evident that many issues remained to be resolved. Further briefing was ordered on the subject. It is also evident that a final approval order could not have been entered as to the 1172 class members who did not receive notice of the class action or settlement until now, and for whom there will be a fairness hearing in December. Letters from 34 class members were received by the Court concerning the motions for final approval of the federal securities and California settlements as a result of the original notice served on class members (not the 1172 class members). The majority of them will be considered in the context of the disposition of those motions. But three of them seemingly attempt to request late opt-out from the classes. The letters are from: Gary Benson (received August 2), James Curry (August 18), and David Hawke (September 2). All of the requests were filed after the deadline of May 14, 2010, for late opt-out requests due to excusable neglect. They were not submitted as formal motions to opt out. As the requests are embedded in letters concerning objection to approval of the settlements, it is unclear if these individuals are stating that they do not want to be a part of the class -- or alternatively part of a settlement to which they object. (The latter would be dependent upon the terms of the class settlement agreement itself, rather than a court order.) Class counsel are directed to contact these three individuals to inform them that if they are in fact seeking exclusion from the class (rather than objecting to the settlements) at this late date, they must file a formal motion demonstrating excusable neglect. At such time, counsel will be given an opportunity to respond. Letters from two class members assert requests pertaining to application of the settlement to their individual losses, but not objections to the class settlement agreements themselves. These were received from Gary and Mary Kauffman (FL) and Jeff Elwell (CO). Counsel were copied. Class counsel are directed to contact these individuals in response to their letters, if they have not already done so, to resolve the amount of expected distribution of settlement funds to them. CHINESE DAILY NEWS: 9th Cir. Affirms Reporters' FLSA Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling certifying a lawsuit against Chinese Daily News, Inc., a Chinese-language newspaper, as a class action. The district court action was brought by some of the newspaper's California-based employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and under California law. The district court certified the FLSA claim as a collective action. It certified the state-law claims as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) and, alternatively, under Rule 23(b)(3). In the state-law class action, it provided for notice and opt out, but subsequently invalidated the opt outs. It granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs; held jury and bench trials; entered judgment for plaintiffs; awarded attorney's fees to plaintiffs; and conducted a new opt-out process. CDN appealed, challenging aspects of each of these rulings, as well as the jury's verdict. A three-man panel consisting of Circuit Judges Stephen S. Trott and William A. Fletcher, and District Judge Charles R. Breyer for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation, agree with the district court's determination on summary judgment that CDN's reporters were non-exempt employees who were entitled to the protections of the FLSA and California law. "In sum, we conclude that the district court did an admirable job in this multifaceted case. We affirm in all respects," Judge Fletcher, who wrote the opinion, said. The cases are (1) Lynne Wang; Yu Fang Ines Kai; Hui Jung Pao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Lien Yi Jung; Yu Fang Kai; Chang Chingfang; Jeffrey Sun; Shieh-Sheng Wei; Yun Min Pao; Hui Jung Lee; Chengyang Yan; Shiang Huang; Chih-Ming Sheu; Minh Vi-Huynh; Jenny Liu Hung, v. Chinese Daily News, Inc.; and (2) Lynne Wang; Yu Fang Ines Kai; Hui Jung Pao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Lien Yi Jung; Yu Fang Kai; Chingfang Chang; Shieh-Sheng Wei; Yun Min Pao; Hui Jung Lee; Chenyang Yan; Shiang L. Huang; Chih-Ming Sheu; Minh Vi-Huynh; Jenny Liu Hung; Jeffrey Sun, v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., case nos. 08-55483 and 08-56740 (9th Cir.) A copy of the Court's opinion is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100927095 The reporters are represented by: Della Bahan, Esq., 125 University Ave., Ste. 102 Berkeley, CA - and - Christy Virginia Keeny, Esq. Cordelia Dai, Esq. Randy Renick, Esq. HADSELL STORMER KEENY RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: 626-585-9600 E-mail: vkeeny@hskrr.com cdai@hskrr.com rrr@hskrr.com CDN is represented by: Michael M. Berger, Esq. Benjamin G. Shatz, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS 11355 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: 310-312-4185 310-312-4000 Facsimile: 310-312-4224 E-mail: mmberger@manatt.com bshatz@manatt.com CKE RESTAURANTS: Files Stipulation to Settle Delaware Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- CKE Restaurants, Inc., and the plaintiffs in a suit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery have filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, to resolve the matter, according to the company's Sept. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 9, 2010. Between March 1, 2010 and March 26, 2010, seven putative stockholder class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara against the company, each of its directors, Thomas H. Lee Partners, LP and its affiliates alleging the directors breached their fiduciary duties regarding a prior merger agreement with an affiliate of THL and that THL and its affiliates aided and abetted those breaches. On March 29, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the three cases filed in that court as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 5290-VCP. On April 1, 2010, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a consolidated complaint. On April 12, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the Delaware Action plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings and request for a hearing to consider preliminarily enjoining the Prior Merger. On May 12, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed an amended consolidated complaint against the company, its directors, Apollo and its affiliates, Parent and Merger Sub, that drops the challenge to the Prior Merger Agreement and instead alleges the directors breached their fiduciary duties regarding the merger with Apollo, including that the directors had breached their duty of disclosure in the preliminary proxy statement, and that Apollo and its affiliates aided and abetted those breaches. On May 12, 2010, the plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited discovery and the scheduling of a hearing to preliminarily enjoin the Merger. On or about May 25, 2010, the company entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action regarding the settlement of the Delaware Action. On or about June 7, 2010, the parties to Delaware Action informed that Court that they had reached a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the Delaware Action. Pursuant to the MOU, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action conducted discovery to confirm the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement of the Delaware Action. On or about Aug.1, 2010, counsel for plaintiffs in the Delaware Action confirmed that such discovery had been satisfactory and that plaintiffs were agreeable to proceed with the settlement as outlined in the MOU. On Sept. 13, 2010, the parties to the Delaware Action filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release regarding settlement of the Delaware Action. The Delaware Court of Chancery has scheduled a hearing for Nov. 18, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. at which point the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. Furthermore, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a motion in the Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by us, which the defendants may oppose. The company will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Delaware Court of Chancery. CKE Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.ckr.com/-- owns, operates, franchises or licenses 3,116 quick-service restaurants, which are referred to in the company's industry as QSRs, primarily under the brand names Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Carl's Jr. restaurants are primarily located in the Western United States. The Hardee's restaurants are located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States. CKE RESTAURANTS: California Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiffs in a suit against CKE Restaurants, Inc., filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara, have agreed to dismiss their claims once the suit pending against the company in Delaware is settled. Between March 1, 2010 and March 26, 2010, seven putative stockholder class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara against the company, each of its directors, Thomas H. Lee Partners, LP and its affiliates alleging the directors breached their fiduciary duties regarding a prior merger agreement with an affiliate of THL and that THL and its affiliates aided and abetted those breaches. On March 26, 2010, the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara consolidated the four cases filed in that court as In re CKE Restaurants, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1342245. On April 8, 2010, plaintiffs in the California Action filed a consolidated complaint. On April 16, 2010, the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara granted the defendants' motion for a stay of the California Action pending resolution of the Delaware Action. On or about June 8, 2010, the parties to the California Action reached an agreement in principle regarding settlement of the California Action. The plaintiffs in the California Action have agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims following final approval of the settlement of the Delaware Action, according to the company's Sept. 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 9, 2010. CKE Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.ckr.com/-- owns, operates, franchises or licenses 3,116 quick-service restaurants, which are referred to in the company's industry as QSRs, primarily under the brand names Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Carl's Jr. restaurants are primarily located in the Western United States. The Hardee's restaurants are located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States. COMMUNITY NATIONAL: Fla. Ct. Dismisses Ex-Employees' ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In Frank Guididas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al., v. Community National Bank Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-1410 (M.D. Florida), former employees of subsidiaries of Community National Bank Corporation seek to hold CNBC and some of its former officers and directors liable for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Security Act. The putative class are participants of the Community National Bank Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan. Plaintiffs' claims arise from the alleged failure of Defendants, who are or were fiduciaries of the Plan, to act solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, and to exercise the required skill, care, prudence, and diligence in administering the Plan and the Plans' assets during the period of time from January 1, 2005, to the present. Plaintiffs also contend in their complaint that during the relevant period of time, Defendants imprudently permitted the Plan to hold and acquire thousands of dollars in CNBC stock. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants knew or should have known that CNBC or its wholly owned subsidiaries, were engaging in activities such as self-interested lending and practices designed to render its banking operations unsound and unsafe as determined by federal bank regulators. As a result, CNBC stock was no longer a prudent and appropriate investment for Plaintiffs' retirement savings and Defendants' actions caused the Plan to incur enormous losses. Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint, arguing that the issue of administrative exhaustion of remedies cannot be re-litigated because it is barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion, based on the Court's ruling in Swetic v. Community National Bank Corporation et al., No. 09-cv-2636. Defendants also argue, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative remedies under the Plan. The Hon. James S. Moody Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida concludes that, even assuming arguendo, that the complaint is not barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion, Plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative remedies under the Plan. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint, without prejudice to Plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies. A copy of the Court's order is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100924a57 DIAMOND MANAGEMENT: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Diamond Management & Technology Consultants is selling itself too cheaply to PricewaterhouseCoopers and its wholly owned subsidiary, Carbon Merger Subsidiary, for $12.50 a share or $378 million, shareholders say in Delaware Chancery Court. A copy of the Complaint in Fallender v. Diamond Management & Technology Consultants, Inc., et al., Case No. 5862 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/01/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 North Market St., Suite 1401 Citizens Bank Center P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 FORCE PROTECTION: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Force Protection Inc. has reached an agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder securities class action entitled In re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against the company and a number of the company's former directors and/or officers. The settlement amount is $24 million, a majority of which will be covered by insurance, according to the company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.. The settlement is subject to court approval and certain other conditions. Neither the company nor any of its present and former directors and/or officers has admitted any wrongdoing or liability in connection with these settlements. Additionally, the settlements provide that the parties have reached mutually agreeable resolution of these cases to avoid protracted and expensive litigation, including the outcome and risks associated with proceeding. On March 10, 2008, the first of ten related class action lawsuits was filed against the company and certain of its former and current directors or officers, on behalf of a proposed class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock during the period between Aug. 14, 2006, and Feb. 29, 2008. The complaints seek class certification, and the allegations include, but are not limited to, allegations that the defendants violated the Exchange Act and made false or misleading public statements and/or omissions concerning our business, internal controls, and financial results. The individual class action lawsuits were consolidated on June 10, 2008. On Sept. 29, 2009, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, and the parties are engaging in discovery. Force Protection, Inc. -- http://www.forceprotection.net/-- is a leading designer, developer and manufacturer of survivability solutions, including blast- and ballistic-protected wheeled vehicles currently deployed by the U.S. military and its allies to support armed forces and security personnel in conflict zones. The Company's specialty vehicles, including the Buffalo, Cougar and related variants, are designed specifically for reconnaissance and urban operations and to protect their occupants from landmines, hostile fire, and improvised explosive devices ("IEDs", commonly referred to as roadside bombs). Complementing these efforts, the company is designing, developing and marketing new vehicle platforms (including the Ocelot and JAMMA) that provide increased modularity, speed, mobility and concealment with enhanced levels of blast- and ballistic-protection. The company also develops, manufactures, tests, delivers and supports products and services aimed at further enhancing the survivability of users against additional threats. In addition, the Company provides long-term life cycle support services of its vehicles that involve development of technical data packages, supply of spares, field and depot maintenance activities, assignment of highly-skilled field service representatives, and advanced on and off-road driver and maintenance training programs. GSI GROUP: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The approval of a settlement agreement resolving a suit against GSI Group, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On Dec. 12, 2008, in connection with the delayed filing of its results for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008, and the announcement of a review of revenue transactions, a putative shareholder class action alleging federal securities violations was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company, a former officer and a then-current officer and director. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks recovery of damages in an unspecified amount. The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between April 30, 2008 and Dec. 3, 2008. A lead plaintiff, Mason Tenders District Council Trust Funds, was appointed on May 8, 2009. On July 1, 2009, the Court ordered lead plaintiff to file a consolidated or amended complaint within 30 days of the company's filing of restatements for certain of its historical financial results with the SEC. In May 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement covers purchasers of the common stock of the company between Feb. 27, 2007 and June 30, 2009. On July 30, 2010, a Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was filed with the court. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the U.S. District Court, according to the company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Although the settlement agreement has not yet been approved by the U.S. District Court, the total settlement amount is within the company's insurance policy limits; the company's contribution to the settlement amount would be limited to the balance of the company's self-insured retention, of which approximately $403,000 is included in accrued expenses as of Dec. 31, 2009. GSI Group, Inc. -- http://www.gsig.com/-- develops and delivers the enabling technology solutions that bring our customers' advanced manufacturing applications to life. The company's leading brands include precision motion products, lasers, and laser systems, and are used to boost efficiency and productivity in the global medical, semiconductor, electronics, and industrial markets. GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Hamel" Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- GT Solar International, Inc., continues to defend a putative securities class-action suit captioned, Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. On Sept. 18, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in New Hampshire state court in the Superior Court for Hillsborough County, Southern District against the company, certain of its officers and directors and certain underwriters of the company's July 24, 2008, initial public offering. The state class action plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The state class action complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement for the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the status of the company's business relationship with LDK Solar. Among other relief, the state class action complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the State Court should deem just and proper. The company removed the state class action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on Oct. 22, 2008. The state class action was consolidated with the federal class action on Nov. 25, 2008. On Feb. 2, 2009, the federal court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the state class action to New Hampshire State Court. On May 4, 2009, the parties agreed to a stay of the state class action, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated federal case. At a case structuring conference on June 3, 2009, the state court endorsed the proposed joint case management order filed by the parties which requires coordination of any discovery to be taken in the state class action with that taken in the federal class action. With the denial of the motion to dismiss the federal action, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order to the State Court on Nov. 6, 2009. On Jan. 12, 2010, the State Court granted a joint motion of the parties to transfer the state class action to the State Court's Business and Commercial Dispute Docket. 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 July 3, 2010. GT Solar International, Inc. -- http://www.gtsolar.com/-- provides manufacturing equipment and turnkey manufacturing solutions to the photovoltaic (PV) industry. The company's products and solutions are used for production of solar grade polysilicon, manufacturing of multicrystalline silicon wafers, production of solar cells and assembly of complete modules. GT Solar International, Inc. provides facility and process design and integration know-how with its equipment. The company offers its products and services to PV product manufacturers on a worldwide basis, and a substantial percentage of its sales are to customers outside the United States. GT SOLAR: Continues to Defend "Braun" Suit in New Hampshire ----------------------------------------------------------- GT Solar International, Inc., continues to defend an amended consolidated complaint in the matter Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00312, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Beginning on Aug. 1, 2008, seven putative securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, against the company, certain of its officers and directors, certain underwriters of the company's July 24, 2008 initial public offering and others, including certain investors in the company. On Oct. 3, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the actions. The Court selected the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the federal class action on Oct. 29, 2008. The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on Dec. 22, 2008. The lead plaintiff asserts claims under various sections of the Securities Act. The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in certain SEC filings, including the registration statement and Prospectus for the company's July 24, 2008, initial public offering, and other public statements, regarding the status of its business relationship with LDK Solar, Ltd. Among other relief, the amended consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the Court should deem just and proper. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on Feb. 5, 2009. On Sept. 22, 2009, the Court denied the defendants' motion. Following the Court's denial of the motion, the parties submitted a proposed joint case management order, which the Court approved on Nov. 16, 2009. The case management order provides for discovery to close on May 25, 2011. 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 July 3, 2010. The suit is Braun et al. v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00312 (New Hampshire) (Laplante, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher Cole, Esq. SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN 1000 Elm St., P.O. Box 3701 Manchester, NH 03105-3701 Tel: (603) 668-0300 E-mail: ccole@sheehan.com - and - Michelle H. Blauner, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY 53 State St, 13th Flr. Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: mblauner@shulaw.com Representing the defendants are: W. Daniel Deane, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 900 Elm St., 14th Flr Manchester, NH 03101-2031 Tel: (603) 628-4047 E-mail: ddeane@nixonpeabody.com - and - William H. Paine, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 526-6000 E-mail: william.paine@wilmerhale.com INERGY LP: Hearing on Plaintiff's Injunction Motion on Oct. 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has set an Oct. 22, 2010, hearing for the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on a merger agreement involving Inergy, L.P., according to the company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Inergy, L.P., Inergy GP, LLC, Inergy Holdings, L.P., Inergy Holdings GP, LLC, NRGP Limited Partner, LLC and NRGP MS, LLC entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger on Aug. 7, 2010, which was amended and restated on Sept. 3, 2010, as part of a plan to simplify the capital structures of Inergy and Holdings. Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, a unitholder class action lawsuit, G-2 Trading LLC v. Inergy GP, LLC et al., No. 5816, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by common unitholders of Inergy against Inergy, Holdings, Inergy GP, John J. Sherman, Phillip L. Elbert, Warren H. Gfeller, Arthur B. Krause, Robert D. Taylor, R. Brooks Sherman, Jr., Andrew L. Atterbury, William C. Gautreaux and Carl A. Hughes. On Sept. 29, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery scheduled a hearing in response to the plaintiff's motion seeking expedited treatment of the Inergy Unitholder Lawsuit. The hearing on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, which asks the court to enjoin the consummation of the proposed merger, has been set for Oct. 22, 2010. Headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, Inergy, L.P.'s operations include the retail marketing, sale, and distribution of propane to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers. Inergy serves approximately 800,000 retail customers from over 300 customer service centers throughout the United States. The company also operates a natural gas storage business; a supply logistics, transportation, and wholesale marketing business that serves independent dealers and multi-state marketers in the United States and Canada; and a solution-mining and salt production company. Inergy Holdings, L.P.'s assets consist of its ownership interest in Inergy, L.P., including limited partnership interests, ownership of the general partners, and the incentive distribution rights. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Approval of Class Suit Settlement Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The approval of a settlement agreement resolving a consolidated suit against Limelight Networks, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. In August 2007, the company, certain of its officers and directors, and the firms that served as the lead underwriters in our initial public offering were named as defendants in several purported class action lawsuits. These lawsuits have been consolidated into a single lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common stock in its initial public offering between June 8, 2007 and Aug. 8, 2007. The complaint seeks compensatory damages and plaintiffs' costs and expenses in the litigation. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company omitted and/or misstated certain facts concerning the seasonality of its business and that the loss of revenue with respect to certain customers. On March 17, 2008, the company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims, and a hearing was held on this motion on June 16, 2008. On Aug. 8, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 with prejudice and granting leave to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15. Plaintiffs chose not to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15, and on Aug. 29, 2008, the court entered judgment in favor of the company. On Sept. 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and appellate briefs were filed by the parties in January and February 2009. In November 2009 the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle this lawsuit for an amount well within the coverage limits of the primary carrier of the company's directors and officers liability insurance, and the company is seeking court approval to finalize 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. Limelight Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: LLNW) -- http://www.limelightnetworks.com/-- is a content delivery network service provider is based in Tempe, Arizona. MF GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Motion to Replead -------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs are appealing the denial of their motion to replead by filing an amended complaint against MF Global Holdings Ltd. One of the company's brokers, Evan Dooley, trading for his own account out of a Memphis, Tennessee branch office through one of the company's front end order entry systems, Order Express, put on a significant wheat futures position during the late evening of Feb. 26, 2008 and early morning of Feb. 27, 2008. The positions were liquidated at a loss of $141.0 million on Feb. 27, 2008. The trades were unauthorized and because the broker had no apparent means of paying for the trades, the company, as a clearing member of the exchange, was required to pay the $141.0 million shortfall. The exchange and regulators were immediately notified, the broker was promptly terminated, and a public announcement of the loss was made by the company the next day. As a result of the Dooley Trading Incident, the company, Man Group, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters for the initial public offering have been named as defendants in five actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, which purport to be brought as class actions on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the IPO and Feb. 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's risk management and monitoring practices and procedures. The five purported shareholder class actions have been consolidated for all purposes into a single action. The company made a motion to dismiss which has been granted, with plaintiff having a right to replead and/or appeal the dismissal. Plaintiffs made a motion to replead by filing an amended complaint, which was denied. Plaintiffs have appealed, 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. MF Global Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- is a leading broker-dealer in cash and derivatives, providing seamless execution, clearing, and settlement services in exchange-traded and over-the-counter markets. A leader by volume on multiple exchanges, the firm delivers insight and access across a broad range of products. MF Global helps its diverse client base meet their unique trading and hedging needs through customized solutions, market expertise, and value-added research. MONSANTO CO: Missouri Ct. Denies Bid to Consolidate Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ In Rochester Laborers Pension Fund, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Monsanto Company, et al., Case No. 10-CV-1380 (E.D. Missouri, September 28, 2010), the Hon. Catherine D. Perry denied defendants' motion to consolidate the securities class action lawsuit with a shareholder derivative action pending before the Honorable Henry E. Autrey. Plaintiff opposes consolidation. Judge Perry says defendants have failed to demonstrate that consolidation is appropriate. The two cases have different procedural and substantive requirements, so consolidation would likely delay proceedings and lead to confusion and inefficiency. The cases also name different defendants. Consolidation might result in inconvenience or even unfair prejudice to some parties. The lawsuit brings class-wide securities claims against Monsanto and several of its senior managers on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of Monsanto Company between January 7, 2009 and May 27, 2010. Plaintiff alleges violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. About one month after this case was filed, a shareholder derivative action was filed in this Court and randomly assigned to Judge Autrey. As a derivative action, the case is brought on behalf of Monsanto and asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Monsanto officers and directors. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order is available at: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100928a87 MTV NETWORKS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Delania Lindahl, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MTV Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04448 (N.D. Calif. October 1, 2010, accuses the division of media conglomerate Viacom of failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, converting the plaintiff class' rightfully earned wages for their own use and benefit, failing to reimburse employees for required and necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of their duties, and unfair business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. Ms. Lindahl performed primarily clerical work for defendants, including coordinating domestic and international travel for defendants, assisting defendants with logistics for set visits, promotional shoots, appearances, and commercials, coordinating the contractual needs of talent employed by defendants so that their needs were met, answering phones, and making reservations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Schonbrun, Esq. Michael D. Seplow, Esq. Courtney Abrams, Esq. SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & HARRISON, LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 E-mail: schonbrun.ben@gmail.com mseplow@gmail.com cabrams@gmail.com NEIMAN MARCUS: Defends Complaint in San Francisco County -------------------------------------------------------- Neiman Marcus, Inc., is defending against a complaint in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, according to the company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010. On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and Equitable Relief was in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California filed by Sheila Monjazeb, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, against the company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC. On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the company were dismissed without prejudice, and on Aug. 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. The complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the company has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including without limitation (1) asking employees to work "off the clock," (2) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, (3) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees, and (4) failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts. The plaintiffs seek certification of their case as a class action, reimbursement for past wages and temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing defendant from allegedly continuing to violate the laws cited in their complaints. Neiman Marcus, Inc.'s operations include the Specialty Retail Stores segment and the Direct Marketing segment. The Specialty Retail Stores segment consists primarily of Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman stores. The Direct Marketing segment conducts both online and print catalog operations under the Neiman Marcus, Horchow and Bergdorf Goodman brand names. On the Net: http://www.neimanmarcusgroup.com/ ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Remains Party to Suits Over Occupancy Taxes ------------------------------------------------------------- Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., remains a party to various cases brought by consumers and municipalities and other U.S. governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and the company's merchant hotel business model. Some of the cases are purported class actions, and most of the cases were brought simultaneously against other online travel companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline. The cases allege, among other things, that we violated the jurisdictions' hotel occupancy tax ordinance. While not identical in their allegations, the cases generally assert similar claims, including violations of local or state occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer protection ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in some cases, civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including: declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs, attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an order certifying the action as a class action. An adverse ruling in one or more of these cases, according to the company, could require it to pay tax retroactively and prospectively and possibly pay penalties, interest and fines. The proliferation of additional cases could result in substantial additional defense costs. No updates or further details 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. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://corp.orbitz.com/-- is a global online travel company that uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a broad range of travel products. Orbitz Worldwide owns a portfolio of consumer brands that includes orbitz.com, cheaptickets.com, ebookers.com, hotelclub.com, ratestogo.com, the Away Network, and corporate travel brand Orbitz for Business. PHILIP MORRIS: Asks Ill. Cir. Ct. to Subpoena Golin Harris ---------------------------------------------------------- Dayna Craft (withdrawn), et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Case No. 002-00406-02 (Mo. Cir. Ct.. St. Louis Cty.), was filed on February 14, 2000. The pending case involves consumer fraud and unjust enrichment claims. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204, on September 30, 2010, Philip Morris USA Inc. petitioned the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to Golin Harris to require the deposition and production of documents and information material to the class action case now pending in Missouri State Court. Golin Harris is located in Cook County, Illinois. The Clerk assigned Case No. 2010-L-011130 to the proceeding. Golin Harris is a global public relations firm owned by Interpublic Group of Companies. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204(b): Any officer or person authorized by the laws of another State, territory, or county to take any deposition in this State, with or without a commission, in any action pending in a court of that State, territory, or county may petition that circuit court in the county in which the deponent resides or is employed or transacts business in person or is found for a subpoena to compel the appearance of the deponent or for an order to compel the giving of testimony by the deponent. The court may hear and act upon the petition with or without notice as the court directs. The petitioner is represented by: George C. Lombardi, Esq. Jeffrey M. Wagner, Esq. Erik W. Snapp, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 - and - Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq. Craig A. Benson, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 The plaintiffs are represented by: Mark I. Bronson, Esq. NEWMAN, BRONSON & WALLIS 2300 Westport Plaza Drive St. Louis, MO 63146 - and - Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Maximilian C. Gibbons, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 - and - Stephen A. Sheller, Esq. SHELLER LUDWIG & BADEY 1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 - and - Gerson H. Smoger, Esq. SMOGER & ASSOCIATES, PC 3175 Monterey Boulevard, Suite 3 Oakland, CA 94602 - and - Stephen Swedlow, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1940 Chicago, IL 60601 - and - Andrea L. Hertzfeld, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Billing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Sprint "rolled out" its 4G wireless phones this summer under the slogan "Sprint: First and Only Wireless 4G from a National Carrier," but can't provide that service nationwide, and in California, only can provide it in Merced, Modesto, Stockton and Visalia, according to a class action in San Diego Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Salvatierra v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02044 (S.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/01/SprintCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 3636 4th Ave. # 202 San Diego, CA 92103-4237 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 THOR INDUSTRIES: Plaintiff Agrees to Voluntarily Dismiss Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Teamsters Allied Benefit Funds has agreed to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit against Thor Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, according to the company's Sept. 29, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010. On June 25, 2010, the company and certain of its officers and directors were sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio -- Dayton Division by Teamsters Allied Benefit Funds, individually and purportedly on behalf of a class of all those who purchased or acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 30, 2009 to June 10, 2010. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the company's SEC filings and press releases were false and misleading due to, among other things, the company's June 10, 2010 announcement that its financial statements might need to be restated. The company has since announced that a restatement is not necessary. The plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice on Sept. 7, 2010. Thor Industries, Inc. manufactures recreation vehicles and builds commercial buses & ambulances. WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Webster Bank, N.A., has agreed to settle the lawsuit filed in connection to the Bank's alleged inadequate disclosure of its procedures for assessment and collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers, according to Webster Financial Corp.'s Sept. 29, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Webster Bank has been named as a defendant in two separate actions arising from its assessment and collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers. The first complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury on April 29, 2010 and alleges that various Webster Bank practices, including the alleged posting of electronic debit card transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount, are unfairly used by Webster for the sole purpose of generating revenue by maximizing the number of overdrafts a customer is assessed. The Connecticut Complaint seeks the certification of a class of checking account holders residing in Connecticut and that have incurred at least one overdraft fee, injunctive relief, compensatory, punitive and treble damages and attorney's fees. Webster Bank, on Sept. 29, 2010, confirmed that it has entered into an agreement to settle the class action lawsuit. While Webster Bank, N.A. continues to believe its practices were both proper and lawful, Webster Bank agreed to pay $2.8 million fully and finally to resolve the litigation, and avoid any further expense and distraction occasioned by the litigation. The settlement, which is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, would also fully and finally resolve a nearly identical class action currently pending in New York. Webster Financial Corporation -- http://www.websterbank.com/-- is the holding company for Webster Bank, National Association. With $17.7 billion in assets, Webster provides business and consumer banking, mortgage, financial planning, trust and investment services through 181 banking offices, 500 ATMs, telephone banking and the Internet. Webster Bank owns the asset-based lending firm Webster Business Credit Corporation, and the equipment finance firm, Webster Capital Finance, and provides health savings account trustee and administrative services through HSA Bank, a division of Webster Bank. Member FDIC and equal housing lender. ********* 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 * * *