/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/101025.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 25, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 210 Headlines ACTIVIDENTITY CORP: Board Faces Suit Over Sale to ASSA AMERICAN CHARTERED: Sued for Obtaining Judgment Illegally BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firms File Proposed Foreclosure Class Suit BENDIGO BANK: Class Suit Over Failed Investment Schemes Junked CENTURY 21: Franchisees' Class-Action Lawsuit Moves Forward COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Decertifies "Drenckhahn" Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Castaneda Agrees to Dismiss Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Pytelewski Suit in Calif. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Hawk" Action in Wash. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Ward" in California COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Medrano" Action in California COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over "Product Ambassadors" COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on "Ellis" Certification Still Ongoing COSTCO WHOLESALE: Expects Revised Settlement in "Fuel" Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Hesse" Action Remanded by Appellate Court COSTCO WHOLESALE: Motion to Certify "Salmon" Suit Pending COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Denies Motion to File Amended Complaint COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Kilano" Suit Still Ongoing in Michigan GREENBRIER INT'L: Recalls 275,000 Projector Flashlights JAKKS PACIFIC: Recalls 516,000 Spa Factory & Bath Benefits Kits LOLLYTOGS LTD: Recalls 10,200 Infant Overalls MUNCHKIN INC: Recalls 34,000 Bathtub Subs NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: 7th Circuit Grants Petition for Rehearing OMNI ENERGY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suits in Western Louisiana SHORETEL INC: Court Certifies Securities Suit as Class Action WD-40 CO: Continues to Defend "Burns" Suit in California ********* ACTIVIDENTITY CORP: Board Faces Suit Over Sale to ASSA ------------------------------------------------------ Beverly and Lionel Sacks, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ActivIdentity Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-04705 (N.D. Calif. October 18, 2010), accuse the members of the Board of directors of the global authentication and credential management solutions provider, aided and abetted by ActiIdentity, of breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with their attempts to complete the sale of ActivIdentity to ASSA ABLOY, the parent company of HID Global, via an unfair process and at an unfair price. The suit further alleges that the Board was aided and abetted at all times by ActivIdentity. The plaintiffs seek the Court's immediate judicial intervention to rectify existing and future irreparable harm to the Company's shareholders. In an October 11, 2010 press release, ActivIdentity announced that the Company had entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by ASSA ABLOY, the Swedish lock manufacturer, in a cash transaction at a price of $3.25 per share, or approximately $162 million. ActivIdentity expects the acquisition, which is subject to ActivIdentity shareholder approval, applicable regulatory clearances and other customary closing conditions, to close in December 2010. The Plaintiffs allege that the stock of the Company has historically traded substantially above HID's $3.25 per share offer, and as high as $3.33 per share as recently as April 27, 2010, and going forward, the Company should continue to experience improvements in its financial performance. HID disagrees, saying that their offer represents a significant 43% premium over the closing price of ActivIdentity shares 3 days before the announcement of the proposed acquisition (October 8, 2010), and a premium of 48% over the the stock's 20-day closing pricing average. The Plaintiffs currently own approximately 45,000 shares of ActivIdentity common stock. The individual defendants include: -- Grant Evans, CEO and Chairman of the Board -- Brad Boston, Director -- Robert Brandewie, Director -- James Frankola, Director -- Steven Humphreys, Director -- James E. Ousley, Director -- David B. Wright, Director Plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders when they failed to secure the highest value reasonable for the Company's shareholders, while obtaining for themselves personal benefits, including personal financial benefits, not equally shared by the Company's public shareholders. For instance, less than two months ago, the Board approved amendments to the compensation packages of Company executives, including individual defendant Grant Evans, the Company's CEO Chairman of the Board, promising them a big payoff upon the sale of the Company. On Aug. 31, 2010, the Compensation Committee of the Board agreed to permit CEO Evans to obtain, if he is terminated within one year of a change-in-control event: (i) an increase in his severance amount from 18 months to 24 months of base salary plus a target bonus for that year; (ii) an extension of the post-termination time period for health coverage from 12 months to 24 months; (iii) an acceleration of the vesting schedule of all equity incentive awards then held by him; and (iv) an extension of the post- termination exercise period for equity incentive awards to 24 months. The Compensation Committee of the Board also approved amendments to the compensation package of Jacques Kerrest, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and amendments to the compensation package of John Boyer, the Company's Senior Vice President. The Company has also agreed to onerous deal protection devices, including maintaining a "poison pill" shareholder rights plan, which makes it too expensive for competing bidders to acquire control of the Company. In addition, no directors of ActivIdentity may be removed except for cause, and ActivIdentity's Board has the unilateral ability to add or change bylaws without shareholder approval, can increase or decrease the size of the Board, can fill any vacancies on the Board, and can issue blank check preferred stock -- all of which make a takeover even more impossible. Defendants also agreed to these onerous deal protection provisions in the merger agreement: (i) a no-solicitation provision that prevents other buyers from having access to ActivIdentity's confidential information, which is necessary to formulate a bid except under extremely limited circumstances; (ii) a force-the- vote provision that requires the Board to submit the Proposed Acquisition to a shareholder vote even if a superior proposal is made and the Board changes its recommendation; and (iii) a termination fee that requires the Company to pay HID $1.25 million if the merger is validly terminated, and $5 million in cash if the Proposed Acquisition is terminated in favor of a superior proposal. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Randall J. Baron, Esq. A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq. David t. Wissbroecker, Esq. Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq. David A. Knotts, Esq. Eun Jin Lee, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWN LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: darren@rgrdlaw.com randyb@rgrdlaw.com ricka@rgrdlaw.com dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com dknotts@rgrdlaw.com elee@rgrdlaw.com - and - Hamilton Lindley, Esq. GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP 2501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1801 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 583-2233 E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com AMERICAN CHARTERED: Sued for Obtaining Judgment Illegally --------------------------------------------------------- Louis Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. American Chartered Bank, Case No. 2010-CH-45181 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October 15, 2010), accuses ACB of filing lawsuits in Illinois confessing judgment against borrowers and guarantors without process despite not having the authority to do so and based upon powers to confess judgment that are invalid (where there is a variable rate of interest in a promissory note). Mr. Jones believes that ACB's conduct was knowing and willful and carried out for pecuniary gain. The suit relates that Mr. Jones signed a commercial guaranty of certain loans as evidenced by a promissory note dated August 11, 2010. ACB sued Mr. Jones for an alleged breach of the Guaranty. Attorney Martin F. Hauselman represented ACB in the case, captioned American Chartered Bank v. Louis Jones Enterprises, Inc. and Louis Jones, Case No. 09L-51701 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.). Attorney Jay Levy confessed judgment against Mr. Jones. The complaint says that on December 22, 2009, and without service of process upon Mr. Jones, judgment by confession was entered in favor of ACB against Mr. Jones in the amount of $604,094.04 The Complaint relates that the "Confession of Judgment" section of the Guaranty signed by Mr. Jones does not authorize the confession of judgment against Mr. Jones without process, and that Attorney Jay Levy did not have the authority to confess judgment against Mr. Jones without process. The Complaint relates that Mr. Jones needed to be served with process prior to the entry of the judgment by confession in order for Mr. Jones to be subject to the court's jurisdiction. Since summons was not served on Mr. Jones, the court did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Jones at the time the judgment was entered. Therefore, the judgment by confession entered against Jones on December 22, 2009, is a nullity and should be vacated. Mr. Jones says he did not discover the judgment by confession until months later, when he became aware of the issuance of a citation to discover assets. The conduct of ACB in omitting from the confession of judgment clause the fact that it could seek a confession of judgment without process was deceptive in that Mr. Jones believed that he was entitled to notice and would be served with process prior to any confession of judgment, according to the Complaint. Plaintiff Jones asks the Court, among other things, to declare that the judgment against him be vacated and all post-judgment enforcement be quashed; and to order ACB to repay Mr. Jones for any money ACB received from garnishments or other post-judgment actions obtained to enforce judgments obtained with a power to confess judgment that is invalid. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold H. Landis, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD H. LANDIS 77 W. Washington, Suite 702 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-6268 BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firms File Proposed Foreclosure Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Swiatek, writing for IndyStar.com, reports an Indianapolis law firm has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit on behalf of homeowners nationally who've been foreclosed on by lenders using questionable paperwork. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, names a Knightstown couple as plaintiff and Bank of America, Countrywide Home Loans and BAC Home Loans Servicing as defendants. Bank of America is one of the national lenders that recently stopped foreclosure proceedings against homeowners over concerns that its paperwork procedures were improper. The lawsuit is one of the first class-action lawsuits in the nation filed against lenders on behalf of homeowners who've been evicted from their homes using allegedly fraudulent documents, said Clifford Rubenstein of Carmel, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in the case. Cohen & Malad of Indianapolis is the lead counsel in the lawsuit, which alleges Bank of America and the other defendants "engaged in racketeering and fraud on the courts by knowingly filing perjured affidavits" in foreclosure cases, the law firm said. "This flies in the face of the private property rights that we cherish in our country," Cohen & Malad said in a statement. "Caring more about ongoing profits and less about keeping good records, major lenders like Countrywide and Bank of America joined together and set up a straw man, called MERS, which used an electronic registration system instead of conventional real estate documents. The system was a nightmare, losing track of and improperly entering loan information," the law firm said. "Lenders ignored the fundamental rights of homeowners by failing to keep track of who owned mortgages and how much, if any, was owed." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford Rubenstein, Esq. MAURER RIFKIN & HILL, P.C. 11550 North Meridian Street, Suite 115 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: 317-844-8372 Meanwhile, 6News reports Henry County couple is seeking class- action status for a federal lawsuit they've filed against Bank of America in the midst of a nationwide foreclosure investigation. Dwayne and Melisa Davis claim the bank denied them a chance to save their home from foreclosure because it used fraudulent paperwork, 6News' Rafael Sanchez reported. "This case doesn't seek to overturn the foreclosure judgments themselves, but rather money damages for homeowners thrown out of their homes too soon because the bank cut corners and used false affidavits," said the couple's attorney, Richard Shevitz from Indianapolis firm Cohen & Malad. The lawsuit seeks to help people who were foreclosed on by Bank of America from Oct. 18, 2006, through the present. A representative with Bank of America Home Loans told 6News via e-mail that the company had no comment on the litigation. Bank of America on Monday announced it would resume foreclosures in Indiana and 22 other states next week after questions were raised about the paperwork the company filed in regaining control of their properties. The company said in a statement Monday that it found nothing wrong with its process. Critics allege Bank of America and several other lenders use people known as "robo-signers" who approve a mass number of foreclosures without verifying the information. "It's disgraceful, they should be ashamed," said Indianapolis consumer advocate and attorney Chris Jackson. "I have clients who were locked out of their homes prior to the filing of a foreclosure complaint." Of the 43 foreclosure cases Mr. Jackson is representing, she said the majority involve lenders using unreliable information. "They are mass processing these important legal matters and now we see what's happened because it's done on the cheap," she said. Bank of America will have 20 days to respond to the Davises' lawsuit before the case seeking class-action status gets a hearing. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Shevitz, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: 317.636.6481 About Bank of America Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is one of the world's largest financial institutions. The Company serves more than 59 million consumer and small business relationships with more than 6,100 retail banking offices, nearly 18,700 ATMs and online banking with nearly 29 million active users. Following the acquisition of Merrill Lynch in January 2009, BofA is among the world's leading wealth management companies and is a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world. Bank of America offers support to more than 4 million small business owners. The Company serves clients in more than 150 countries. Bank of America Corporation stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. BofA sought government backing in completing its acquisition of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- is a wealth management, capital markets and advisory companies with offices in 40 countries and territories. BofA has received US$45 billion in government bailout money since the economic collapse in 2008. BENDIGO BANK: Class Suit Over Failed Investment Schemes Junked -------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Kennedy, writing for Bendigo Advertiser, reports a multi- million dollar class action brought against the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank by lawyers acting on behalf of investors in the failed Great Southern Plantations managed investment schemes has been struck out. Bendigo and Adelaide Bank managing director Mike Hirst on Tuesday welcomed the court decision to strike out the amended statement of claim in the first class action brought against the bank on behalf of investors, who collectively still owe the bank more than $450 million over the failed investment schemes. Justice Croft of the Supreme Court of Victoria on Tuesday struck out the amended statement of claim in the class action against the Bank initiated by the law firm Macpherson + Kelley on behalf of investors in the Great Southern Plantations 2005 and 2006 managed investment schemes. While Justice Croft has left the door open for Macpherson + Kelley to bring a new argument, in a statement released late yesterday, Mr. Hirst said the judgment had delivered a damaging blow to the case being alleged against the Bank. "Macpherson + Kelley has spent the past 15 months preparing its claim, which one could assume it believed was its strongest argument against the Bank. However, that argument has failed and now it will need to think of new arguments if it is to pursue a class action on behalf of its clients." Mr. Hirst said the bank would now write to borrowers to inform them of this development and urge those borrowers not making loan repayments to consider recommencing repayments. Mr. Hirst said the bank had worked hard in the best interests of borrowers to secure value from the agricultural assets owned by Great Southern, noting that many of these schemes are under new management. Equally, the bank expected borrowers to meet their commitments. "We have an obligation to all our stakeholders to recover monies loaned to investors in these schemes and we will set out to do so," Mr. Hirst said. The Bendigo Advertiser understands a further action against the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank initiated by Sydney based law firm DC Legal is still ongoing. Mr. Hirst has previously described the claim document presented by DC Legal as "hopelessly inadequate". Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers principal Ron Willemsen said it was important to note that the court had not been prepared to excuse the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank from answering the case. "Macpherson + Kelley will be filing the new version as soon as is needed," he said. The case was set to return to court on Friday, October 22. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ron Willemsen, Esq. MACPHERSON + KELLEY LAWYERS Level 22, 114 William Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 GPO Box 1666 Melbourne 3001 Telephone: 03 9794 2625 E-mail: ron.willemsen@mk.com.au CENTURY 21: Franchisees' Class-Action Lawsuit Moves Forward ----------------------------------------------------------- A class-action lawsuit filed by Century 21 franchisees against Century 21 Real Estate Corp. and parent company Cendant is moving forward following a decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division. In August, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Robert J. Brennan certified a class of current and former Century 21 franchisees in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and other claims against their franchisor, Century 21 Real Estate Corp., as well as its parent company, consumer and business services provider Cendant Corp. Currently, Century 21 is owned by Cendant spin-off Realogy Corp. Following Judge Brennan's ruling, Cendant asked the New Jersey Appellate Division to reconsider the class certification decision. On October 15, 2010, the appellate court announced it would not hear the appeal, which clears the way for the case to go to trial. "We are pleased that the case will now move forward as originally directed by Judge Brennan," says attorney Dan Drachler of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, who represents the franchisees along with firm co-founder Robert S. Schachter. "As a result of Cendant's actions, Century 21 franchisees have suffered damages that may total in the hundreds of millions of dollars," says Mr. Schachter. According to the lawsuit, Cendant failed to provide the level of services to Century 21 franchisees required by their agreements. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that contributions to a national advertising fund, which topped more than $40 million annually, were misappropriated and diverted to uses other than the benefit of Century 21, including the promotion of Century 21's Cendant- owned real estate competitors. Shortly after the purchase of Century 21, Cendant also acquired Coldwell Banker and ERA. Judge Brennan's order certified a class of current and former Century 21 franchisees during the period from August 1995 to April 2002 whose franchise agreements contain a New Jersey jurisdiction clause. The franchisee plaintiffs also are represented by New Jersey-based Keefe Bartels LLC and the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., office of Adorno & Yoss. Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, represents clients nationwide in financial-related class-action lawsuits. With offices in New York City; Garden City, N.Y.; and Seattle, the firm currently plays a leading role in numerous major securities and complex commercial litigations pending in federal and state courts. To learn more, please visit the firm's Web site at http://www.zsz.com/ For more information, on the class-action lawsuit involving Century 21 franchisees, please contact Mark Annick at 800-559-4534 or mark@androvett.com The franchisees are represented by: Dan Drachler, Esq. Robert S. Schachter, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: 212-223-3900 - and - Patrick Joseph Bartels, Esq. KEEFE BARTELS LLC 170 Monmouth Street Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: 732-224-9400 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Decertifies "Drenckhahn" Action ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles) granted Costco Wholesale Corporation's motion to decertify the action captioned Jesse Drenckhahn v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV08-1408 FMC (JMJ), according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. On Dec. 26, 2007, a putative class action was filed, principally alleging denial of overtime compensation. The complaint alleges misclassification of certain California managers. On May 15, 2008, the court partially granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissing certain claims and refusing to expand the statute of limitations for the remaining claims. An answer to the complaint was filed on May 27, 2008. Plaintiff's class certification motion was denied, while a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action was conditionally certified for notice purposes only. The company's motion to decertify was granted on Sept. 14, 2010. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Castaneda Agrees to Dismiss Suit -------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the matter Anthony Castaneda v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. BC-399302, has agreed to dismiss his action against Costco Wholesale Corporation, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. The case is purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff principally alleges that the company's routine closing procedures and security checks cause employees to incur delays that qualify as uncompensated working time and that deny them statutorily guaranteed meal periods and rest breaks. The complaint was filed on Oct. 2, 2008, in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, and the company's motion to dismiss was partially granted. On Feb. 1, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and that ruling was appealed. The court granted summary judgment against the plaintiff on his individual claim on April 19, 2010. Plaintiff subsequently agreed to dismiss the action. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Pytelewski Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corp continues to defend the complaint styled Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 37-2009- 00089654, pending in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego. The purported class action was filed on May 15, 2009, on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, claiming denial of wages and false imprisonment during the post-closing jewelry and till "pull," when security measures allegedly cause employees to be locked in the warehouses. No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Hawk" Action in Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------ Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to defend the complaint styled Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA, pending in the King County Superior Court. The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2009, in the State of Washington, and contains similar allegations as in the matter Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp. No updates or additional information on the action was disclosed in the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Ward" in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to defend the matter Carrie Ward v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV08-02013 FMC (FFM), pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). A putative class action was filed on Jan. 24, 2008, purportedly brought on behalf of two groups of former California employees: an "Unpaid Wage Class"; and a "Wage Statement Class." The "Unpaid Wage Class" alleges that the company improperly deducts employee credit card balances from final paychecks, while the "Wage Statement Class" alleges that final paychecks do not contain the accurate and itemized information legally required for wage statements. On May 29, 2008, the court granted in part a motion to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice the wage itemization claims. On May 5, 2009, the court denied the company's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's class certification motion was denied, while an FLSA collective action was conditionally certified for notice purposes only. Eighteen individuals filed consents to join the FLSA collective actions. No updates were disclosed in the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Medrano" Action in California ------------------------------------------------------ Costco Wholesale Corporation faces the matter Manuel Medrano v. Costco Wholesale Corp., and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., Case No. CV-10-6626-VBF-JCGx, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles), according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. On July 14, 2010, a putative class action was filed alleging that the company unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation, denied meal and rest breaks, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide accurate wage-itemization statements, and willfully failed to pay termination wages alleged resulting from misclassification of certain California department managers as exempt employees. On Sept. 3, 2010, the company removed the case to federal court. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over "Product Ambassadors" ------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation faces the matter Bright v. Dennis Garberg & Assocs., Inc., et al., Case No. BC399563, pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. On July 23, 2010, a putative class action was filed against several defendants, including the company, alleging that defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to provide accurate wage-itemization statements, failed to pay wages, denied meal and rest breaks, and failed to reimburse for uniforms and expenses. Plaintiffs are temporary promotion employees, known as "product ambassadors," hired by various marketing companies (also named defendants), which contract with retailers such as the company, to staff in-store demonstrations and promotional events. The complaint alleges that the company is a "joint employer" of the plaintiffs. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on "Ellis" Certification Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation's appeal on the class certification in the matter Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. C-04-3341-MHP, is ongoing. A case brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California state law. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees. Class certification was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 11, 2007. On May 11, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear the Company's appeal of the certification. The appeal was argued on April 14, 2008. No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Expects Revised Settlement in "Fuel" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation discloses that it expects a revised settlement agreement to be submitted after the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied final approval, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the United States against motor fuel retailers, including the company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer. The company is named in these actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07- cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.). On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. On Feb. 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On April 12, 2009, the company agreed to a settlement involving the actions in which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which is subject to final approval by the court, the company has agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to install over five years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments to class members. On Aug. 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. On Aug. 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement. The company expects that a revised settlement will be submitted for court approval. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Hesse" Action Remanded by Appellate Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals has remanded a consolidated complaint against Costco Wholesale Corporation back to the District Court, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. The company has been named as a defendant in two purported class actions relating to sales of organic milk: Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.); and Snell v. Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.). Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states, essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic." Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008. With respect to the company, plaintiffs seek to certify four classes of people who purchased Costco organic milk. Aurora has maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid organic certifications. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. On June 3, 2009, the district court entered an order dismissing with prejudice, among others, all claims against the Company. As a result of an appeal by the plaintiffs, on Sept. 15, 2010, the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the rulings of the district court and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Motion to Certify "Salmon" Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- The motion of the plaintiffs to certify a class in the Farm Raised Salmon Coordinated Proceedings, Case No. JCCP No. 4329, against Costco Wholesale Corporation is pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. The company has been named as a defendant in a purported class action relating to sales of farm-raised salmon. The action alleges that the company violated California law requiring farm- raised salmon to be labeled as "color added." The complaint asserts violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California False Advertising Law, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks restoration of money acquired by means of unfair competition or false advertising and compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, injunctive relief remedying the allegedly improper disclosures, and costs and attorneys' fees. A California Superior Court ruling dismissing the action on the ground that federal law does not permit claims for mislabeling of farm-raised salmon to be asserted by private parties was reversed by the California Supreme Court. The company has denied the material allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is pending. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Denies Motion to File Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has denied the motion of one plaintiff in the matter In Verzani, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09 CV 2117, to file an amended complaint, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. The suit is a purported nationwide class action, alleging claims for breach of contract and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure of the Company to disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with Cocktail Sauce" the weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct from the accompanying cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges. The complaint seeks various forms of damages (including compensatory and treble damages and disgorgement and restitution), injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. On April 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the Company from selling the shrimp tray unless the Company separately discloses the weight of the shrimp and provides shrimp consistent with the disclosed weight. By orders dated July 29 and Aug. 6, 2009, the court denied the preliminary injunction motion and dismissed the claim for breach of contract, and on July 21, 2010, the court of appeals summarily affirmed these rulings. On Sept. 28, 2010, the district court denied the motion of one plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Kilano" Suit Still Ongoing in Michigan --------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation defends the matter In Kilano, et. ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:10-cv-11456-VAR-DAS, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2010. Two members purport to represent a class of certain Michigan Executive level-members who received 2% rewards. Plaintiffs allege that the company "guarantees" that the member will receive rewards of no less than the fifty dollar difference between Executive and Gold Star membership and that the company is required to but has failed to automatically reimburse members whose rewards are less than this difference. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. They seek compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. The company has filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- http://www.costco.com/-- operates membership warehouses-based offering its members products in a range of merchandise categories. It buys the majority of its merchandise directly from manufacturers and route it to a cross- docking consolidation point (depot) or directly to its warehouses. GREENBRIER INT'L: Recalls 275,000 Projector Flashlights ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Greenbrier International, Inc., of Chesapeake, Va., announced a voluntary recall of about 275,000 Wolverine, Spider-Man and Iron Man 2 Projector Flashlights. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The flashlights can cause the batteries and/or bulb to overheat, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. The firm has received three reports of incidents involving batteries overheating in the recalled flashlights. Reported incidents include a flashlight that melted and a flashlight battery that caught fire. No injuries have been reported. The recalled projector flashlights are about 6-1/2 inches in length and have the Wolverine, Spider-Man and Iron Man characters and names printed on them. The flashlights come with five extra mini discs that attach to the flashlight to project various images. The back of the packaging contains the number 16879-20012- 003-1003 and UPC 6 39277 16879 5. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11013.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Dollar Tree, Dollar Bill$, Dollar Tree $1 Stop, Deal$ and Dollar Tree Deal$ stores nationwide from August 2010 for about $1. Consumers should take the recalled flashlights away from children immediately, remove and properly discard the batteries and return the flashlights to the store where purchased for a full refund. For additional information, contact Dollar Tree Stores Inc. at (800) 876-8077 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.dollartree.com/ JAKKS PACIFIC: Recalls 516,000 Spa Factory & Bath Benefits Kits --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with JAKKS Pacific(R), is reannouncing the recall of 516,000 Spa Factory(TM) Aromatherapy Fountain & Bath Benefits Kits. Consumers should immediately take the toy's jars and caps away from children and dispose of any jar lids without vent holes. Only use jars that have lids with vent holes. This children's product was originally recalled in January 2009. Since that time, there have been additional injuries caused by the Spa Factory(TM)Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain & Bath Benefits Kits. Pressure from the buildup of carbon dioxide in the jars of Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies that come with the kits can cause the unvented lids to blow off, posing explosion and projectile hazards. The flying pieces also can cause property damage. Additionally, the mixture of water with the Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies can create citric acid. This acid can get into consumers' eyes when the jars explode, posing a risk of eye irritation. As of January 2009, CPSC had received 88 reports of exploding jars, including 13 injuries to children. Since that time, CPSC has received 12 additional reports of exploding unvented jars of JAKKS' Bath Bombs/Balls or Bath Fizzies, including 13 additional reported injuries. The new injuries include irritated eyes, irritated skin and one eye injury from projectile jar lids. Model Item Number UPC Bar Code ----- ---------- ------------ Spa Factory(TM) Bath Benefits(TM) Kit 37836 22876-37836-6 Spa Factory(TM) Deluxe Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain 37908 22876-37908-0 Spa Factory(TM) Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain 37837 22876-37837-3 Spa Factory(TM) Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain 54892 22876-54892-9 Spa Factory(TM) Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain 54857 22876-54857-8 JAKKS Pacific(R) Spa Factory(TM)Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain & Bath Benefits Kits were sold at Sam's Club, Walmart, Target and other stores nationwide from August 2008 through August 2010. They sold for between $13 and $50 and continue to be available in some stores. Consumers should immediately take the toy's jars and caps without vent holes away from children, dispose of any jar lids without vent holes and contact JAKKS Pacific to receive free jar lids with vent holes. Contact JAKKS toll-free at (877) 875-2557 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.myspafactory.com/or e- mail the firm at caps@jakks.net LOLLYTOGS LTD: Recalls 10,200 Infant Overalls --------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Lollytogs Ltd., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 8,300 infant's overalls in the United States and 2,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The overalls have snaps that could come loose and pose a choking hazard to young children. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves infants' Carhartt (R) overalls with style numbers GG8500 (100% cotton canvas) and GG8501 (100% cotton knit). The overalls were sold in brown or red in infant sizes 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months. The Carhartt logo is sewn on the front of the garment and the style numbers can be found on the sewn-in label hanging from the sleeve. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11014.html The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold through Retailers nationwide from February 2010 through July 2010 for about $25. Consumers should immediately take the overalls away from children and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or store credit. For additional information, contact Lollytogs at (800) 637-9035 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ltapparel.com/ MUNCHKIN INC: Recalls 34,000 Bathtub Subs ----------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Munchkin Inc, of North Hills, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 34,000 Bathtub Subs. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The intake valve on the bottom of the submarine toy can suck up loose skin, posing laceration hazard to children. CPSC and the company are aware of 19 incidents of lacerations to boys' genital area. One of the incidents required medical attention. This recall involves battery-operated bathtub submarine toys. The toy is yellow, has a smiling face, turquoise windows, an orange propeller and an orange periscope that turns the toy on and off. The intake valve has a water pump that sucks in water to propel the submarine. The toy is intended for use by children during bath time. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11012.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through mass merchandise retail stores nationwide and children's stores nationwide from November 2009 through September 2010 for about $7. Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from children and contact Munchkin for instructions on how to return the product for a free replacement toy. For additional information, contact Munchkin at (877) 242-3134 anytime or visit the company's Web site at http://www.munchkin.com/ NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: 7th Circuit Grants Petition for Rehearing -------------------------------------------------------------- Tom George, Chris Vitron, Lori Chapko and Edward Snead, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, brought a proposed diversity-based class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association and Ticketmaster, alleging that the defendants' combined ticket-distribution scheme constituted a lottery in violation of Indiana law. The NCAA moved to dismiss, and the district court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs then appealed. On July 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings, with Judge Richard D. Cudahy dissenting. Upon review after the filing of defendants "petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc," the Seventh Circuit granted the petition for rehearing, vacated its opinion, stayed the appeal, and certified three questions to the Indiana Supreme Court. At this juncture, the Seventh Circuit believes that affording the Indiana Supreme Court the opportunity to interpret the application of the Indiana statutes involved appears to be the most prudent course of action. The Seventh Circuit certified these questions to the Indiana Supreme Court: 1. Do the plaintiffs' allegations about the NCAA's method for allocating scarce tickets to championship tournaments describe a lottery that would be unlawful under Indiana law? 2. If the plaintiffs' allegations describe an unlawful lottery, would the NCAA's method for allocating tickets fall within the Ind. Code Section 35-45-5-1(d) exception for "bona fide business transactions that are valid under the law of contracts"? 3. If the plaintiffs' allegations describe an unlawful lottery, do plaintiffs' allegations show that their claims are subject to an in pari delecto defense as described in Lesher, 496 N.E.2d at 790 n.1, and Swain v. Bussell, 10 Ind. 438, 442 (1858)? A copy of the court's opinion George v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 09-3667, is available at http://is.gd/g9I3Yfrom Leagle.com. OMNI ENERGY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Suits in Western Louisiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- OMNI Energy Services Corp. has entered into a memorandum of agreement to settle suits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, arising out of its planned merger with Wellspring Capital Management LLC, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 3, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Wellspring OMNI Holdings Corporation (Parent), and Wellspring OMNI Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, providing for the Merger of Acquisition with and into the company, with the company surviving the merger as a subsidiary of Parent. Six purported class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Merger in state courts in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, and two purported class actions were filed in connection with the Merger in the federal district court for the Western District of Louisiana. Each court action named the company and its directors as defendants, and the state court actions also named Wellspring, Parent and Acquisition. One of the federal actions filed named Parent and Acquisition as defendants. The state court complaints allege, among other things, that the director defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders of the company by entering into the Merger Agreement, failing to disclose certain information with respect to the company and failing to maximize shareholder value. The Wellspring entities are claimed to have aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary duty breaches by the directors of the company. The federal court complaints make substantially the same claims as the state court complaints, but also allege violations of federal law relating to the company's proxy statement disclosures. One or more of the complaints seek injunctions against the Merger, rescission of the Merger if it is consummated, imposition of a constructive trust, damages, attorneys' fees, expenses and other relief. The complaints request class action certification and rulings that the named complainants are representatives of the class. No class has been certified at present. Plaintiffs in certain of the state actions and both federal actions have moved for expedited discovery. Two of the state court proceedings have been dismissed, and the remaining cases have been consolidated. The two complaints filed in federal court have also been consolidated. A motion in the federal court to stay all proceedings until lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel are appointed and defendants' motion to dismiss is resolved in the federal proceedings is pending. A motion for expedited discovery filed by the plaintiffs in the federal proceedings was denied. The plaintiffs in the federal litigation filed a consolidated amended complaint that names, in addition to Parent and Acquisition, Wellspring. No hearing date has been set at this time with respect to any of the pending motions in the federal proceedings. Discovery is proceeding by court order in the state court action. A hearing was held on Exceptions filed by the company and certain individual defendants on September 13, 2010 and were denied. A hearing on Exceptions filed by Wellspring and one Individual Defendant was scheduled for Oct. 18, 2010. On Oct. 14, 2010, the company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the consolidated actions in Sherwin Johnson v. Brian Recatto, et al, Civil Action No. 6:10-CV-01068, and John E. and Jamie Daigle v. Dennis R. Sciotto, et al, Civil Action No. 010-1170 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division. Headquartered in Carencro, LA, OMNI Energy Services Corp. offers a broad range of integrated services to geophysical companies engaged in the acquisition of on-shore seismic data and to oil and gas companies operating primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. OMNI provides its services through three business segments: Seismic Services (including drilling, survey and permitting services), Environmental and Other Services, and Equipment Leasing. OMNI's services play a significant role with geophysical companies who have operations in marsh, swamp, shallow water and the U.S. Gulf Coast also called transition zones and contiguous dry land areas also called highland zones. SHORETEL INC: Court Certifies Securities Suit as Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified In Re Shoretel, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-08-00271-CRB, as a class action for settlement purposes only on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of ShoreTel pursuant or traceable to ShoreTel's Initial Public Offering Prospectus and Registration Statement, or on the open market from July 3, 2007, through January 29, 2008, inclusive. The Court further ruled that Lead Plaintiffs are certified as class representatives and Lead Plaintiffs' selection of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as Class Counsel is approved. A copy of the Court's FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE is available at http://is.gd/g9HGEfrom Leagle.com. WD-40 CO: Continues to Defend "Burns" Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- WD-40 Company continues to defend that matter Andrea Burns v. WD- 40 Company, pending in the Superior Court of California in the County of Orange, according to the company's Oct. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2010. The action was filed on June 18, 2010, and seeks class action status and alleges that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl cleaners are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber. This action is substantively similar to the Drimmer v. WD-40 company case that was filed by the same plaintiff law firm in April 2006 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. In August 2008, the company defeated class certification in that case, a decision that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2009, and the case was dismissed with prejudice in March 2010. WD-40 Company -- http://www.wd40company.com/-- is a global consumer product company dedicated to delivering unique, high- value and easy-to-use solutions for a wide variety of maintenance needs of "doer" and "on-the-job" users by leveraging and building the brand fortress of the company. The company markets three multi-purpose maintenance product brands -- WD-40(R), 3-IN-ONE(R) and BLUE WORKS(TM) -- and eight homecare and cleaning product brands: X-14(R) mildew stain remover and automatic toilet bowl cleaners, 2000 Flushes(R) automatic toilet bowl cleaners, Carpet Fresh(R) and No Vac(R) rug and room deodorizers, Spot Shot(R) aerosol and liquid carpet stain removers, 1001(R) carpet and household cleaners and rug and room deodorizers, and Lava(R) and Solvol(R) heavy-duty hand cleaners. WD-40 Company markets its products in more than 160 countries worldwide and recorded sales of $292 million in fiscal year 2009. ********* 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 * * *