/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110103.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 3, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 1 Headlines ADELPHIA COMMS: Bernstein Demands $22MM From Abbey Spanier AGILENT TECH: Processing Settlement in Varian Shareholder Lawsuit AGILENT TECH: Appeal of IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending AKEENA SOLAR: Class Certification Hearing Set for February 7 AMBAC FINANCIAL: Awaits Court Okay of Securities Suits Settlement AMERICAN BUSINESS: Defendants in Locklear Class Suit in Default ARAMARK CORP: Court Approves Settlement of Wage Violation Lawsuit AT&T INC: Sued Over Deceptive Charges for Prepaid Services AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Settles Shareholder Class Action BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in E.D. Mo. Ct. Over HAMP Violations BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Seeks New Trial on Class Action Verdict BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Still Pending in IPO Suit BROOKFIELD HOMES: Faces Class Suit in Delaware Over Merger BURLINGTON COAT: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Complaint COMFORCE CORP: In Talks to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit COMMSCOPE INC: In Talks to Settle Shareholder Class Action COMPELLENT TECH: Defending Merger-Related Class Suit in Minnesota COOPER COMPANIES: Obtains Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Hawk" Plaintiff Granted Class Certification COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on "Ellis" Certification Still Pending COSTCO WHOLESALE: Two Classes Certified in "Pytelewski" Lawsuit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal From Remand of "Medrano" Suit Pending COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Amended Complaints Over Improper Labels COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dismissed From "Product Ambassadors" Lawsuit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Motion to Certify "Salmon" Suit Denied COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Motion to Amend Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Kilano" Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Head" Suit in California COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Motor Fuel Class Suits DEL MONTE: D&Os Face Second Suit Over $5.3-Bil. Sale to KKR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Accused of Violating Rehabilitation Act FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Defend "Bibo" Wage & Hour Suit FEDEX CORP: "Taylor" Wage & Hour Suit Scheduled for Trial in July FEDEX CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Anfinson" Suit Still Pending FEDEX CORP: Unit Continues to Defend "Rascon" Suit in Colorado FEDEX CORP: 19 of 28 FedEx Ground Summary Judgment Motions Granted FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Continues to Defend "Tidd" Suit GOOGLE INC: Ordered to Divulge Identity of AdWords Advertisers GSI GROUP: Court Sets Feb. 16 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal Still Pending in "Skold" Suit HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fairness Hearing on Inkjet Suit Set for Jan. 28 HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Baggett" Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 31 HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend Suits Over FLSA Violations INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: FCStone Still Defending Consolidated Suit INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending ISRAEL FUEL COS: Face NIS1.4-Bil. Class Action Over "Hot Fuel" JP MORGAN: Accused of Manipulating Silver Bar Financial Products KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS: Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement LTX-CREDENCE: Faces Four Merger-Related Suits in Calif. & Mass. MCDONALD'S CORP: Accused of Violating Computer Privacy Laws MEDCATH CORP: Court Strikes Class Allegations v. Bakersfield Unit META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Two Stockholder Suits in Iowa META FINANCIAL: Still Defending Suits Over Certificates of Deposit MICROSOFT CORP: Calif. Schools Get Class Action Settlement Money NEW SOUTH WALES: May Face Suit Over Legal System Computer Flaw NORTH ORANGE COUNTY: Calif. App. Ct. Rules on Sheppard Suit NOVELL INC: Faces 14 Class Suits Over Proposed Attachmate Merger NOVELL INC: Appeal Pending in SilverStream Securities Class Suit OHIO: Lead Monitor Appointed in Juvenile Justice Class Action ONEIDA COUNTY: Social Services Sued Over Food Stamp Policy PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend "Amason" Suit in Alabama PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Kansas PAVARINI MCGOVERN: Sued for Diverting Trust Funds Under Lien Law PHILIP MORRIS: Minn. Court Reinstates Portions of Class Action PNC FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Refinancing Fee PROSPECT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits REMEC INC: Appeals on California Securities Suit Dismissed Sept. 1 RENTECH INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif. Still Stayed RINO INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears SANTARUS INC: Faces Suit Alleging Labor Violations in New York SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS: Still Faces Securities Suit in California SHEREMETYEVO AIRPORT: Stranded Passengers to File Class Action SSI INVESTMENTS: Holds $0.8MM Cash for Class Suit Defense Costs STATER BROS: SBM Diaries Settles "O'Connor" Suit SUNCOR ENERGY: Judge Blocks Gas Station Owners' Class Action T-MOBILE USA: Sued for Inflating Fees Passed on to Subscribers TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Obtains Final Approval of Suit Settlement TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: St. Clair Derivative Action Now Concluded UNITED STATES: Court Won't Re-Open Age Discrimination Suit v. FAA WELLCARE HEALTH: Settles Securities Class Action for $200-Mil. WPCS INTERNATIONAL: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Pignataro" Suit * US Drug Watchdog Wants Trial Law Firms to Handle Darvon Suits ********* ADELPHIA COMMS: Bernstein Demands $22MM From Abbey Spanier ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann et al. demand $22 million from Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis et al., in a dispute over the Adelphia Communications securities class action, and the lead plaintiffs in it, in New York County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, et al. v. Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, et al., Index No. 652379/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/AttyFees.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory P. Joseph, Esq. Douglas J. Pepe, Esq. Sandra M. Lipsman, Esq. Siobhan Briley, Esq. GREGORY P. JOSEPH LAW OFFICES LLC 485 Lexington Avenue, 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 407-1200 AGILENT TECH: Processing Settlement in Varian Shareholder Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Agilent Technologies, Inc., is now processing the settlement of class action lawsuits over its proposed acquisition of Varian, Inc., according to Agilent's Dec. 20, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010. On Aug. 5, 2009, a putative class action was filed in California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, entitled Feivel Gottlieb Plan - Administrator Feivel Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan DTD 01-01-04 v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09- CV-149132. The action was allegedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders of Varian, Inc., against Varian, its board of directors, Agilent and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Agilent, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Varian. A similar action, entitled Stuart Kreisberg v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-CV-149383, was filed in the same court on Aug. 7, 2009. The actions were subsequently consolidated under the caption In re Varian, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-09-CV- 149132, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2009. The consolidated amended complaint is also filed on behalf of an alleged class of Varian shareholders against Varian, its directors, Agilent and Cobalt. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Varian's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition and asserts, among other things, that the price and other terms are unfair, that Varian's directors have engaged in self-dealing, and that the disclosures in Varian's Aug. 7, 2009, proxy filing are inadequate. Agilent and Cobalt are alleged to have aided and abetted the Varian directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. On Aug. 19, 2009, another substantially similar putative class action, entitled Hawaii Laborers Pension Fund v. Varian, Inc., et al., No. 1-09-CV-150234, was filed in the same court against Varian, its directors, and Agilent. Like the consolidated amended complaint, it asserts claims on behalf of a class of Varian shareholders, alleges that Varian's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition by, inter alia, failing to value Varian properly, agreeing to improper deal terms, engaging in self-dealing and making misleading disclosures, alleges that Agilent aided and abetted those purported breaches of fiduciary duties, and seeks injunctive and other relief (including attorneys' fees and costs). On Sept. 25, 2009, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to settle the class actions. The settlement provides, among other things, that: (i) Varian would make certain agreed-upon disclosures designed to supplement those contained in its definitive proxy statement filed on Aug. 20, 2009; (ii) the litigation will be dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants; (iii) defendants believe the claims are without merit and continue to deny liability, but agree to settle in order to avoid the potential cost and distraction of continued litigation and to eliminate any risk of any delay to the acquisition; and (iv) plaintiffs' counsel may seek fees and costs of up to $625,000, subject to court approval. There is to be no payment of money to the alleged class members. The Santa Clara Superior Court preliminarily approved the settlement, whereupon the Court notified the class of the settlement. One shareholder objected, but the Court found that the objection was not filed before the deadline set by the Court. After an October 1, 2010 hearing, the Santa Clara Superior Court issued its order providing final approval of the settlement on November 5, 2010. The Court made one change to the proposed settlement; the Court awarded plaintiffs' counsel attorney's fees in the amount of $476,600, rather than the $625,000 they had sought. The Company is now processing the settlement. Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life sciences and chemical analysis industries. The company operates in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the bio-analytical measurement business. AGILENT TECH: Appeal of IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the final approval of Agilent Technologies, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its initial public offer remains pending, according to Agilent's Dec. 20, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010. In November 2001, a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639, was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain investment bank underwriters for its initial public offering, Agilent and various of its officers and directors at the time of the IPO. In 2003, the Court granted Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims against Agilent based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act, but denied Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the Securities Act. On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing a settlement among the plaintiffs, Agilent and more than 200 other issuer defendants and insurers were presented to the Court. Under the proposed settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Agilent and its directors and officers would be released, in exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be paid by Agilent's insurer) and an assignment of certain potential claims. However, class certification of plaintiffs' underlying action against the underwriter defendants was a condition of the settlement. On December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Court's order certifying such a class in several "test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs. On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the full bench of the Second Circuit. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit issued an order denying rehearing but noted that plaintiffs are free to "seek certification of a more modest class." On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement between plaintiffs and the issuer defendants based on a stipulation among the parties. Plaintiffs have amended their allegations and filed amended complaints in six "test cases" (none of which involve Agilent). Defendants in these cases have moved to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties have again reached a global settlement of the litigation and filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on April 2, 2009. Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to Agilent, and Agilent would bear no financial liability. Agilent, as well as the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the case. On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. Certain objectors have appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending. Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life sciences and chemical analysis industries. The company operates in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the bio-analytical measurement business. AKEENA SOLAR: Class Certification Hearing Set for February 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ A hearing to consider a motion to certify a class in a lawsuit alleging securities violations pending in California is scheduled for February 7, 2011, according to Akeena Solar, Inc.'s Dec. 15, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission. On October 22, 2010, lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification in the federal action Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-09-02147-JW. On November 15, 2010, lead plaintiff Sharon Hodges filed a motion to withdraw as a representative plaintiff in the Class Action. Ms. Hodges was one of three court-appointed co-lead plaintiffs in the Class Action. The remaining two lead plaintiffs filed a corrected motion seeking class certification on November 15, 2010. On December 13, 2010, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification and against the appointment of the remaining lead plaintiffs as class representatives. The plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification is due January 13, 2011. The hearing on the motion for class certification is currently scheduled for February 7, 2011. The Company continues to believe that the class action has no merit and that it has strong defenses to the claims. As the Company has stated in connection with the securities class action matter, it believes that its disclosures concerning its business during the relevant period of the lawsuit were appropriate and were in full compliance with the federal securities laws. The Company intends to continue defending the remaining claims vigorously. AMBAC FINANCIAL: Awaits Court Okay of Securities Suits Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ambac Financial Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement with lead plaintiffs of securities class action lawsuits pending in New York, according to the Company's Dec. 15, 2010 Form 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Ambac and certain of its present or former officers or directors have been named in lawsuits that allege violations of the federal securities laws. These Securities Class Actions include (i) five class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that were consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 411; the consolidated amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's common stock from October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's "DISCS", issued in February of 2007, and on behalf of purchasers of equity units and common stock in Ambac's March 2008 offerings and (ii) a putative class action entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241, brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 from June 29, 2007 through April 22, 2008. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial results and guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in violation of the securities laws. Various shareholder derivative actions have been filed against certain present or former officers or directors of Ambac, and against Ambac as a nominal defendant. The Shareholder Derivative Actions include (i) three actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 854; (ii) two actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 3521; and (iii) two actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 650050/2008E. The complaints in each of the Shareholder Derivative Actions assert, among other claims, claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control and waste. On November 8, 2010, Ambac filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 22, 2010, the consolidated shareholder derivative action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was dismissed without prejudice in light of the automatic stay required by Ambac's filing under Chapter 11. On December 9, 2010, Ambac and certain of its present or former officers or directors, including the present or former officers or directors who are defendants in the Securities Class Actions, entered into a memorandum of understanding with the lead plaintiffs in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation and the named plaintiffs in Tolin v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., for settlement of both of the Securities Class Actions. The MOU provides that the claims of the putative plaintiff classes will be settled for a cash payment of $27.1 million. The insurance carriers who provided directors and officers liability coverage to Ambac's present and former officers and directors for the period July 2007-July 2009 have agreed to pay $24.6 million of the settlement and Ambac has agreed to pay $2.5 million of the settlement. Lead and named plaintiffs in the Securities Class Actions, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the settlement class, have agreed to releases of claims against, among others, Ambac and the present or former officers or directors who are parties to the MOU. The settlement provided for in the MOU is subject to various conditions, including among others bankruptcy court approval of the settlement and of the releases and bar orders that would release and bar claims against present or former officers or directors of Ambac that were, could have been, might have been or might be in the future asserted by or on behalf of Ambac, including claims purportedly asserted derivatively by any shareholder or creditor of Ambac. The settlement provided for in the MOU also contemplates an order entered by a bankruptcy court directing the filing of appropriate applications seeking dismissal of the Shareholder Derivative Actions (if those Actions have not been previously dismissed). The MOU further provides that nothing in the MOU shall be deemed an admission by any defendant (or any person or entity associated with any defendant) of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing. AMERICAN BUSINESS: Defendants in Locklear Class Suit in Default --------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports two defendants in one of a series of class actions filed over faxed advertisements are in default, according to an order signed by a Madison County judge. Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian on Dec. 10 granted a request by plaintiff Locklear Electric of Wood River to find defendants in default. Neither defendant Christopher Parks nor American Business Lending entered an appearance in the case despite service. A hearing on damages in the case remains to be set. No class was certified in the case. Locklear has filed a number of class actions over faxed advertisements in both Madison and St. Clair counties. While several have either ended or been taken to federal court, another suit against Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic of Florissant, Mo. remains active. Larry Darr represents Locklear in the case at hand. No attorneys are listed for the defendants. The case is Madison case number 08-L-1131. ARAMARK CORP: Court Approves Settlement of Wage Violation Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARAMARK Corp. disclosed in its Dec. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 1, 2010, that its settlement of the class action lawsuit originally filed by Genaro Zendejas Morales, Ricky Silva and Christian Sanchez against ARAMARK Sports, LLC, alleging that defendants did not pay all monies due under California wage and hour laws was approved by the United States District Court, Central District of California on October 12, 2010. The settlement amount was accrued as of October 1, 2010 with payment made during the first quarter of fiscal 2011. ARAMARK Corp. -- http://www.aramark.com/-- is a leader in professional services, providing award-winning food services, facilities management, and uniform and career apparel to health care institutions, universities and school districts, stadiums and arenas, and businesses around the world. AT&T INC: Sued Over Deceptive Charges for Prepaid Services ---------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T and Southwestern Bell bilk customers for unauthorized charges, according to the latest in a string of federal class actions challenging phone companies' billing practices. The telephone giants disguise the "unauthorized, misleading or deceptive charges" as "Enhanced Services," "HBS Billing Services" and/or "ILD Teleservices," according to the complaint. "During the statutory period, defendants began placing on the monthly landline telephone bills of plaintiffs, and other customers similarly situated, unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges for prepaid services, collected a fee for these charges," the complaint states. Lead plaintiff Kim Arnold says the defendants never made full disclosures about the billings, which customers never authorized or ordered, and the phone giants refused to refund the money. The class consists of all U.S. residents who between Dec. 27, 2008 and Dec. 23, 2010 were charged on their monthly landline telephone for Enhanced Services or HBS Billing Services or ILD Teleservices, but who did not order or request such services. A copy of the Complaint in Arnold v. A&T, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02429 (E.D. Mo.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/PhoneBillsCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: C. Marshall Friedman, Esq. Tamar Hamm, Esq. C. MARSHALL FRIEDMAN, P.C. 1010 Market Street, Thirteenth Floor St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314-621-8400 E-mail: mfriedman@marshallfriedman.com thamm@marshallfriedman.com AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Settles Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Authentidate Holding Corp. disclosed that on December 23, 2010, it entered into a settlement agreement providing for the resolution and dismissal, with prejudice, of the purported shareholder class action entitled In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No, 1:05-CV-5323-LTS, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The settlement, which is subject to approval by the Court, provides for a $1.9 million payment to be made by the company's insurance carrier, does not contain or reflect any admission of liability by any defendants and provides an end to continued costly and time-consuming litigation by all parties. Shareholders who purchased Authentidate common stock between July 16, 2004 and May 27, 2005, will be mailed a detailed notice of the settlement and will be permitted to submit claims for a potential payment from the settlement fund. Authentidate Holding Corp. (Nasdaq: ADAT) -- http://www.authentidate.com-- is a worldwide provider of secure health information exchange, workflow management services and telehealth solutions. The company's software and web-based services enable healthcare organizations and other enterprises to increase revenues, reduce costs and enhance patient care by eliminating paper and manual work steps from clinical and administrative processes. The web-based services are delivered as Software as a Service (SaaS), and only require that customers have an Internet connection and web browser. The company's healthcare customers and users include leading homecare companies, health systems and physician groups. These organizations utilize the company's products and services to coordinate care for patients outside of acute-care. BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in E.D. Mo. Ct. Over HAMP Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that the seemingly endless string of class actions against Bank of America's foreclosure policies continued in the Eastern District of Missouri Federal Court. The class claims that BofA and BAC Home Loans Servicing refuse to participate in foreclosure prevention programs despite taking $25 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program money. Lead plaintiff Susan Fraser says Bank of America, by accepting the TARP money, agreed to participate in at least one TARP-authorized program to minimize foreclosures. The complaint echoes similar complaints filed in December by the attorneys general of Arizona and Nevada. BAC Home Loans Servicing is also named as a defendant in the St. Louis complaint. Bank of America signed a contract with the U.S. Treasury April 17, 2009 agreeing to comply with the Home Affordable Modification Program to perform loan modifications and other foreclosure prevention services, the St. Louis complaint states. The class claims the HAMP program requires Bank of America to identify loans that are subject to modification; collect financial and other personal information from the homeowners to evaluate whether the homeowner is eligible for modification; institute a modified loan with a reduced payment amount as per a mandated formula that is effective for a three-month trial period; and provide a permanently modified loan to those homeowners who comply with the requirements during the trial period. "Though Bank of America accepted $25 billion in TARP funds and entered into a contract obligating itself to comply with the HAMP directives and to extend loan modifications for the benefit of distressed homeowners, Bank of America has systematically failed to comply with the terms of the HAMP directives and has regularly and repeatedly violated several of its prohibitions," the complaint states. "Under HAMP, the federal government incentivizes participating servicers to make adjustments to existing mortgage obligations in order to make the monthly payments more affordable. Servicers receive $1,000 for each HAMP modification. However, this incentive is countered by a number of financial factors that make it more profitable for a mortgage for a mortgage servicer such as Bank of America to avoid modification and to continue to keep a mortgage in a state of default or distress and to push loans towards foreclosure. This is especially true in cases where the mortgage is owned by a third-party investor and is merely serviced by the servicer such as Bank of America. On information and belief, Bank of America does not own a significant majority of the loans on which it functions as a servicer." Ms. Fraser says the financial factors that discourage Bank of America from fully participating in HAMP include having to repurchase loans to modify the loan and its collection of default fees. "Rather than allocating adequate resources and working diligently to reduce the number of loans in danger of default by establishing permanent modifications, Bank of America has serially strung out, delayed, and otherwise hindered the modification processes that it contractually undertook to facilitate when it accepted billions of dollars from the United States," the complaint states. "Bank of America's delay and obstruction tactics have taken various forms with the common result that homeowners with loans serviced by Bank of America, who are eligible for permanent loan modifications, and who have met the requirements for participation in the HAMP program, have not received permanent loan modifications to which they are entitled." The class consists of all eligible homeowners who have been serviced by one or both defendants who have not received a permanent modified loan. The class seeks an injunction and damages. A copy of the Complaint in Fraser v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02400 (E.D. Mo.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/BofA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 E-mail: mflannery@careydanis.com BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Seeks New Trial on Class Action Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Gale, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports a motion filed by BankAtlantic Bancorp slams the actions of U.S. District Judge Usrula Ungaro as the defendants seek a new trial to overturn the results of a class action securities lawsuit. The five-week trial, which ended in November, resulted in a jury finding that the Fort Lauderdale-based company (NYSE: BBX), along with Chairman and CEO Alan Levan and CFO Valerie Toalson, violated securities laws. The motion asks the court to schedule post-trial oral arguments. It also attacks the court's methodology, which led to the jury concluding there were eight false and misleading statements from April 2007 through October 2007 that caused $2.41 a share in damages. "The magnitude of prejudicial error in the trial of this case, invited by plaintiffs, is simply overwhelming," the Dec. 17 motion states. The case comes at a challenging time for BankAtlantic, which has sought to raise $125 million after suffering 13 straight quarterly losses. More recently, the bank said it is open to opportunities about its future even though it remains well capitalized and has wanted to stay independent. Some of the motion's arguments center on the value of testimony by expert witness Candace Preston and also involve a verdict form from the defendants that the judge rejected. "The court sided with plaintiffs and refused to submit to the jury a form of verdict that would have the jury determine if the factual assumptions accepted by Preston as true, were true," BankAtlantic's motion states. "Defendants were entitled to a jury determination of these factual assumptions. The failure to provide the jury with such a form of verdict was highly prejudicial error." Aside from seeking a hearing with Judge Ungaro, the arguments outline a strategy for a possible appeal. The motion says the jury failed to get full instructions on the risk theory behind a precedent-setting case that involved Merrill Lynch & Co. "The principal defect in the court's instruction was that it failed to define the zone of foreseeable risk consistently and in a way that made clear that defendants' argument was that the collapsing Florida real estate market severed the causal link," the motion states. During the trial, BankAtlantic senior officials said problems with the bank's loan portfolio, which ultimately affected stock prices, were caused by the real estate downturn in Florida and that bank officials had provided timely disclosures. The motion says the court committed a prejudicial error in instructing the jury that CEO and Chairman Alan Levan gave false statements when talking to analysts on July 25, 2007. Mr. Levan was asked about $135 million in land loans and whether there were other construction portfolios "that you feel there might be some risk down the road as well," according to the motion, which emphasized the quoted phrase in italics. Mr. Levan's response included the statement that "there are no asset classes that we are concerned about in the portfolio as an asset class," the motion notes. The motion states that the specific loans in a larger class being watched "has nothing to do with the entire class of such loans." The motion states the trial engaged "in a process of cherry picking a few words from sentences" and ignored what else was said in the surrounding sentences, paragraphs and pages. Plaintiffs' attorney Eugene Stearns, a name partner in Miami's Stearns Weaver law firm, raised similar concerns during the trial. The motion notes that Mr. Levan's statements also fall under the SEC's "safe harbor" rules, which govern what executives can say about the outlook for their companies. There's a high bar to demonstrate "severe recklessness," the motion states. Talking about Mr. Levan's frame of mind when he talked to the analysts, the motion notes: "Whatever the court's opinion about the objective falsity of these statements, there was not a shred of evidence that Alan Levan did not believe his statements to be true when made or even made them with severe recklessness." The motion also says the court committed prejudicial error in allowing introduction of eight e-mails by Perry Alexander, "which were laced with profanity, slang, gossip, and every other indication of unreliability imaginable." The plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of tying Mr. Alexander's job position to the statement he made in his e- mails, the motion states. Mr. Alexander, a senior VP in BankAtlantic's special asset department, was BankAtlantic's commercial lending manager for Miami-Dade County from 1995 through 2008, and sat on its major loan committee (MLC) with Mr. Levan and other top officials from 2004 through most of 2007. His e-mails referred to the bank's MLC as "a sneaky pack of liars" and "asleep at the wheel." He said that one MLC member knew nothing about commercial real estate and was like "putty" in the hands of Mr. Levan. The motion states that the plaintiffs "did not and cannot show that Alexander was the lender for, or as market manager, supervised the lender for, any of the loans that even they claim are relevant to this dispute." In a sign that the bank is ready to appeal, the section on Perry also says, "The Eleventh Circuit will reverse and order a new trial based on the erroneous admission of evidence if the district court made 'a clear error of judgment' or 'applied an incorrect legal standard.'" BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Still Pending in IPO Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its initial public offering remains subject of appeals, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-K filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 30, 2010. On July 20, 2001, the first of a number of putative class actions for violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Brocade, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters for Brocade's initial public offering of securities. A consolidated amended class action captioned, In re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 6613, was filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint generally alleges that various underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in Brocade's initial public offering and seeks unspecified damages for claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common stock from May 24, 1999 to December 6, 2000. The lawsuit against Brocade was coordinated for pretrial proceedings with a number of other pending litigations challenging underwriter practices in over 300 cases as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), including actions against McDATA Corporation, Inrange Technologies Corporation -- which was first acquired by Computer Network Technology Corporation and subsequently acquired by McDATA as part of the CNT acquisition -- and Foundry, and certain of each entity's respective officers and directors, and initial public offering underwriters. The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated litigation, under which the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Brocade Entities, and the Brocade Entities will bear no financial liability. On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. Certain objectors have appealed the Court's final order. BROOKFIELD HOMES: Faces Class Suit in Delaware Over Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Brookfield Homes Corporation disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 17, 2010, that on or about December 13, 2010, Plymouth County Retirement Association, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated parties, filed an action in Delaware Chancery Court alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed business combination of Brookfield Homes Corporation and the residential and land division of Brookfield Properties Corporation. The complaint names Brookfield Homes, Brookfield Asset Management Inc., Brookfield Properties, Brookfield Residential Acquisition Corporation, and each member of the Board of Directors of Brookfield Homes, as defendants. The complaint asserts a claim against all defendants for alleged breaches of their purported fiduciary duties in connection with the merger. The complaint also asserts a claim against Brookfield Properties for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches. In addition to requesting that the case proceed as a class action, the complaint seeks to enjoin consummation of the merger as well as an award of unspecified damages and attorney's fees. BURLINGTON COAT: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against an amended complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's Dec. 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 30, 2010. A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California on Sept. 17, 2009. The named plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all current, former, and future employees in the United States and the State of California for the relevant statutory time period. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Nov. 16, 2009. The amended complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the California Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal and rest periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required by statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage statements, and unfair competition. The complaint seeks certification as a class with respect to the FLSA claims, certification of a class with respect to California law claims, appointment of class counsel and class representative, civil penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, pre- judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action. Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/-- is a nationally recognized retailer of high-quality, branded apparel at everyday low prices. The company currently serves its customers through its 449 stores in 44 states and Puerto Rico. COMFORCE CORP: In Talks to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- COMFORCE Corporation disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 17, 2010, that it is in talks with plaintiffs to settle a class action lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duties due to the Company's planned merger with another company. On November 1, 2010, COMFORCE Corporation entered into an agreement and plan of merger with CFS Parent Corp., an affiliate of ABRY Partners, LLC and CFS Merger Sub Corp., a direct wholly- owned subsidiary of Parent, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company being the surviving corporation. On November 22, 2010, the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a definitive proxy statement in connection with the proposed merger. Following the announcement of the merger agreement, three putative class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of stockholders of the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York sitting in Nassau County, docketed as Scott Deal v. COMFORCE Corporation, et al., Index No. 600986/2010, Brian Anthony v. COMFORCE Corporation, et al., Index No. 10-20869 and Jack Wilkinson v. Harry V. Maccarrone, et al., Index No. 600996/2010, two of which were filed on November 5, 2010, and one of which was filed on November 15, 2010. A fourth purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on November 17, 2010, docketed as Austin A. Iodice v. COMFORCE Corporation, et al., Case No. 5999-VCN. In addition, a fourth case was filed on behalf of stockholders of the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York sitting in Nassau County, docketed as Kenneth Schuster, et al. v. COMFORCE Corporation, et al., Index No. 10-21588, which was filed on Nov. 18, 2010. On November 23, 2010, the New York Supreme Court entered an Order consolidating the four New York cases under the caption In re Comforce Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 600986/2010 and appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel. Thereafter, the court in the Consolidated New York Action scheduled a hearing to consider plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for December 16 to 17, 2010, and the parties commenced discovery pursuant to an agreed-upon expedited schedule. On December 7, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the remaining case, Austin A. Iodice v. COMFORCE Corporation, in favor of the Consolidated New York Action. This separate Delaware action is not part of the Consolidated New York Action. Subsequently, the parties in the Consolidated New York Action entered into a binding memorandum of understanding, dated as of December 16, 2010, which provides the general terms for a settlement of the Consolidated New York Action. Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, Parent, Merger Sub and the Company agreed to amend the merger agreement to address certain provisions characterized by the plaintiffs as "preclusive," and the Company agreed to make certain disclosures to its stockholders relating to the merger, in addition to the information contained in the definitive proxy statement. The memorandum of understanding provides that the parties will use their good faith best efforts to agree upon and execute an appropriate stipulation of settlement and such other documentation as may be necessary for the presentation of the settlement to the Supreme Court of the State of New York sitting in Nassau County for approval. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. After submission of the stipulation of settlement, the court will schedule a hearing at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. At such time as the Court sets a hearing to consider the settlement, further information regarding the settlement and the approval process will be provided to stockholders. The lawsuits name the Company, its directors (other than John Fanning in one of the complaints), certain Company officers, ABRY, Parent and Merger Sub. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the members of the board of directors and named officers, breached certain fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by entering into the merger agreement. The complaints also allege that the Company, ABRY, Parent and/or Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints, one of which was amended, include additional allegations that the proxy statement fails to disclose certain material information. The plaintiffs are seeking relief that includes, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting consummation of the merger, rescission or rescissory damages, and payment of the plaintiffs' costs and expenses. The Company, Parent, Merger Sub and ABRY have entered into a joint defense agreement. The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in any of the actions, and expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal burdens and are entering into the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay in the consummation of the merger. COMMSCOPE INC: In Talks to Settle Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- CommScope, Inc., is trying to negotiate a settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by shareholders who are against the merger agreement among CommScope, Cedar I Holding Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation that was formed by an affiliate of The Carlyle Group, and Cedar I Merger Sub, Inc., according to CommScope's Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 20, 2010. Four putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the Merger in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, members of its board of directors, Parent, Merger Sub, and Carlyle asserting that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, and asserting that Parent, Merger Sub and Carlyle aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. These four actions were consolidated before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on November 23, 2010 under the caption In re CommScope Corp. Shareholders Litigation. On December 17, 2010, CommScope entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this consolidated putative stockholder class action. The Company believes that no further disclosure is required to supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk that the putative stockholder class action may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger. Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware 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 proposed 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. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor, which the defendants may oppose. The Company or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. COMPELLENT TECH: Defending Merger-Related Class Suit in Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------------- Compellent Technologies, Inc., disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 16, 2010, that it is currently defending itself against a class action lawsuit relating to its merger with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell Inc. On December 12, 2010, Compellent Technologies entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell Inc., Dell International L.L.C., and Dell Trinity Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell International. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Compellent, with Compellent continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dell. As a result of the Merger, each share of Compellent common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger (other than shares held by Compellent, Dell, Merger Sub or any of their wholly owned subsidiaries or by stockholders of Compellent who have validly exercised their appraisal rights under Delaware law) will be converted into the right to receive $27.75 in cash, without interest and subject to any required tax withholding. On December 15, 2010, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed by a single plaintiff against the members of Compellent's board of directors, Dell and Merger Sub in the State of Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District in the County of Hennepin. The action, entitled Robert P. Jones v. Black et al., alleges that the members of Compellent's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and independence to Compellent's stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement because they failed to, among other things (1) fully inform themselves of the market value of Compellent before entering into the Merger Agreement, (2) exercise valid business judgment in connection with the Merger Agreement, (3) act in the bests interests of the stockholders, (4) maximize stockholder value, and (5) obtain the best financial and other terms. The complaint alleges that Dell and Merger Sub aided and abetted Compellent's board of directors in breaching their fiduciary duties. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the acquisition of Compellent by Dell and Merger Sub and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. Additional lawsuits may be filed asserting substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially similar relief, Compellent noted. Compellent believes the allegations in the complaint are entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend each action. However, even a meritless lawsuit potentially may delay consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including the Merger. COOPER COMPANIES: Obtains Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities class action lawsuit titled In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC, against The Cooper Companies; A. Thomas Bender, its Chairman of the Board and a director; Robert S. Weiss, its Chief Executive Officer and a director; and Gregory A. Fryling, CooperVision's former President and Chief Operating Officer. On May 4, 2010, the Company announced that it has reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class action lawsuit for $27.0 million. The Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on August 16, 2010, and final approval on December 13, 2010. The Company has exhausted its insurance coverage in defense of this litigation, and if the settlement were to be overturned as a result of an appeal, general and administrative expenses will increase, according to its Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010. COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Hawk" Plaintiff Granted Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the complaint styled Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA, pending in the King County Superior Court was granted class certification status, according to Costco Wholesale's Dec. 17, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 21, 2010. 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., 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. On December 3, 2010, the court granted in part plaintiff's motion for class certification; the class certified consists of people employed in Washington state warehouses from November 2006 through November 2009 who had clocked out and were detained during closing procedures without compensation. 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 Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- 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, remains pending. 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. The Company continues to await a decision. No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 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: Two Classes Certified in "Pytelewski" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Two classes were certified in the case captioned as Mary Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2009-00089654, according to Costco Wholesale's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 2010. A case purportedly brought as a class action was filed on May 15, 2009 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. On December 14, 2010, the court certified two classes of hourly non-exempt employees subject to the Company's closing lockdown procedures: one under California law for California non-union employees who were subject to the closing procedures between May 15, 2005 and October 1, 2009; and a nationwide class under federal law for full-time employees who were subject to the closing procedures between April 8, 2007 and October 1, 2009. 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 From Remand of "Medrano" Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation is appealing a court's decision to remand the matter Manuel Medrano v. Costco Wholesale Corp., and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 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. The court recently remanded the action, and the Company has appealed that decision. 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 Amended Complaints Over Improper Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation 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. Plaintiffs have filed amended complaints, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 21, 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: Dismissed From "Product Ambassadors" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation has been dismissed from 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 Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 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. On November 29, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal of the Company. 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 Denied -------------------------------------------------------- The motion of plaintiffs to certify a class in the Farm Raised Salmon Coordinated Proceedings, Case No. JCCP No. 4329, against Costco Wholesale Corporation was denied by the Los Angeles Superior Court in November, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 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 was denied on November 16, 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: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Motion to Amend Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ A plaintiff has appealed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's denial of a motion to file an amended complaint in the matter In Verzani, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09 CV 2117, according to Costco Wholesale's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 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. On December 1, this plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this and other rulings. 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" Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to defend itself against a lawsuit captioned as 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. 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. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 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 "Head" Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- A case purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and former managers of Costco Wholesale Corp. in California, in which plaintiff principally alleges that he has not been properly compensated for overtime work -- Terry Head v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-409805. On October 2, 2009, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, and that ruling has been appealed. No further updates were reported in Costco Wholesale's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 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 Face Motor Fuel Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to face class action lawsuits alleging that it has been overcharging consumers in relation to motor fuel sold, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 21, 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 the following 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 United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On February 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 August 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. On August 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement. 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. DEL MONTE: D&Os Face Second Suit Over $5.3-Bil. Sale to KKR ----------------------------------------------------------- Sarah P. Heintz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Richard Wolford, et al., Case No. 10-cv-05789 (N.D. Calif. December 20, 2010), brings claims against Del Monte Foods Company and its Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law, arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to an investor group led by funds affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vester Capital Partners and Centerview Partners via an unfair process and for an unfair price of $19.00 in cash for each share of Del Monte common stock, in a transaction valued at roughly $5.3 billion, including the assumption of roughly $1.3 billion in net debt. Ms. Heintz further accuses Del Monte Foods, Blue Acquisition Group, Inc., and Blue Merger Sub, Inc., for aiding and abetting the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. Ms. Heintz says the proposed offer is unfair because it does not adequately value the Company's future growth prospects. Moreover, according to Ms. Heintz, the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2010, fails to provide the Company's shareholders with material information which would enable them to cast an informed vote regarding the proposed transaction. These disclosure deficiencies principally include Barclays Capital Inc.'s individual involvement in the financing, the amount it has committed to provide, the corresponding interest rates, and the significant compensation it will receive. Barclays Capital is the Company's financial advisor in connection with the proposed transaction. Moreover, Del Monte Foods also agreed to onerous and preclusive deal protection devices that act to discourage other competing bids for the company, including: -- a strict "no solicitation" provision following a 45-day "go- shop" period; -- a matching rights provision granting the Buyout Group a free right to top any superior offer for the Company; -- a termination fee of $120,000,000 (or $60,000,00 in the event that the competing bid resulted from the "go-shop" process) that must be paid by Del Monte to the Buyout Group. Del Monte is one of the country's largest and most well-known producers, distributors and marketers of premium quality, branded pet products and food products for the U.S. retail market, with roughly $3.7 billion in net sales in fiscal 2010. Defendant Richard Wolford is the Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Del Monte Foods. Defendant Blue Acquisition Group, Inc., is owned by a consortium of private equity funds affiliated with KKR, Vestar, and Centerview. Defendant Blue Merger Sub is wholly owned by Blue Acquisition Group, Inc., that was created for the sole purpose of effectuating the proposed transaction. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230-7600 Telephone: (310) 839-0442 E-mail: dbower@zlk.com - and - Joseph Levi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Accused of Violating Rehabilitation Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that disabled people who want to live at home rather than in an institution filed a federal class action against the District of Columbia, which provides them few, if any, opportunity to do this. A copy of the Complaint in Day, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02250 (Huvelle, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/MedRights.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. Jennifer Lav, Esq. UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES-PROTECTION & ADVOCACY 220 I Street NE#130 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 547-0198 ext. 128 E-mail: mrifkin@uls-dc.org jlav@uls-dc.org - and - Kelly Bagby, Esq. Bruce Vignery, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2060 - and - Barbara Wahl, Esq. Brian D. Schneider, Esq. ARENT FOX LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Telephone: (202) 857-6000 E-mail: wahl.barbara@arentfox.com schneider.brian@arentfox.com FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Defend "Bibo" Wage & Hour Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A business segment of FedEx Corporation, Federal Express Corporation, continues to defend the wage-and-hour case captioned Bibo v. FedEx Express, according to the Company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010. In April 2009, a California federal court granted class certification, certifying several subclasses of FedEx Express couriers in California from April 14, 2006 (the date of the settlement of the Foster class action) to the present. The plaintiffs allege that FedEx Express violated California wage- and-hour laws after the date of the Foster settlement. In particular, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they were forced to work "off the clock" and were not provided with required meal breaks or split-shift premiums. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has refused to accept a discretionary appeal of the class certification order at this time. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. FEDEX CORP: "Taylor" Wage & Hour Suit Scheduled for Trial in July ----------------------------------------------------------------- The trial of a purported class action lawsuit over alleged violation of California wage and hour laws captioned Taylor v. FedEx Freight filed against one of FedEx Corporation's subsidiaries is scheduled to begin in July 2011, according to the Company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010. In September 2009, in Taylor v. FedEx Freight, a California state court granted class certification, certifying a class of all current and former drivers employed by FedEx Freight in California who performed linehaul services since June 2003. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they were forced to work "off the clock" and were not provided with required rest or meal breaks. The case has been removed to federal court in California, and trial is currently scheduled for July 2011. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. FEDEX CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Anfinson" Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the verdict in favor of one of FedEx Corporation's business segments, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., in a contractor-model lawsuit captioned Anfinson v. FedEx Ground, remains pending. In January 2008, the Anfinson suit was certified as a class action by a Washington state court. The lawsuit is not part of the multidistrict litigation against FedEx Ground. The plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of FedEx Ground single-route, pickup- and-delivery owner-operators in Washington from Dec. 21, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2005, and allege that the class members should be reimbursed as employees for their uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay. In March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson case was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx Ground, finding that all 320 class members were independent contractors, not employees. The plaintiffs have appealed the verdict. No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. FEDEX CORP: Unit Continues to Defend "Rascon" Suit in Colorado -------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of FedEx Corp. continues to face the class action lawsuit captioned Rascon v. FedEx Ground, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010. In August 2010, a contractor-model lawsuit that is not part of the multidistrict litigation, Rascon v. FedEx Ground, was certified as a class action by a Colorado state court. The plaintiff in Rascon represents a class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner- operators in Colorado who drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds at any time from Aug. 27, 2005 through the present. The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties and attorneys' fees and costs, under Colorado law. The Company's applications for appeal challenging the class certification decision have been rejected. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. FEDEX CORP: 19 of 28 FedEx Ground Summary Judgment Motions Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nineteen out of the 28 summary judgment motions made by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., on state law claims in class action lawsuits have been granted, according to FedEx Corporation's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010. FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits (including 30 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors. Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In sum, the court has now granted FedEx Ground's motions for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 19 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas (the court's previous dismissal without prejudice of the nationwide class claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 based on the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies has been appealed), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. In the other nine certified class actions in the multidistrict litigation, the court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on some of the claims and against FedEx Ground on at least one claim in three of the cases (filed in Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire) and then remanded all nine cases back to district court in the following states for resolution of the remaining claims: Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon (two certified classes) and Texas. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Continues to Defend "Tidd" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., one of FedEx Corporation's business segments, continues to defend a class claim of failure to pay regular wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the matter Tidd v. Adecco USA, Kelly Services and FedEx Ground, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010. In September 2008, a Massachusetts federal court conditionally certified a class limited to individuals who were employed by two temporary employment agencies and who worked as temporary pick-up- and-delivery drivers for FedEx Ground in the New England region within the past three years. Potential claimants must voluntarily "opt in" to the lawsuit in order to be considered part of the class. In addition, in the same opinion, the court granted summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground with respect to the plaintiffs' claims for unpaid overtime wages. The court has since granted judgment in favor of the other two defendants with respect to the overtime claims. Accordingly, the conditionally certified class of plaintiffs is now limited to a claim of failure to pay regular wages due under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small-package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. GOOGLE INC: Ordered to Divulge Identity of AdWords Advertisers -------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports in the latest twist in a long-running potential class-action lawsuit about Google's parked domain program, a federal judge has ordered the search company to reveal potentially confidential information about four AdWords advertisers who also are clients of the Internet marketing firm Wpromote. The ruling, issued earlier in December by U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the Northern District of California, stems from several lawsuits filed in 2008 complaining about Google's AdSense for Domains and AdSense for Errors programs, which place ads on sites that have little or no editorial content. Users often land on such sites after mistyping a URL. The lawsuits, now proceeding as one consolidated action, originally alleged that these sites are low-quality and yield worse conversion rates for marketers than ads that appear on Google's search results. In an amended complaint filed in December, the marketers say they believed that clicks on ads on parked domains "were unlikely to lead to desirable business outcomes, and that placement on such pages could damage their brands." Google, which says that parked-domain ads "perform as well as or better than ads on Search and Display Network sites," recently filed papers seeking dismissal of the case. The company argues that it didn't mislead or harm any of the plaintiffs by placing their ads on parked domains or error sites. Separately, as part of its defense, Google tapped Wpromote CEO Michael Mothner to prepare a report arguing that the lawsuit should not be granted class-action status. That's a key issue for Google because even if the case isn't dismissed by the court, individual marketers' damages in click-fraud lawsuits tend to be too small to make it worthwhile for them, or their attorneys, to pursue the cases individually. Mr. Mothner wrote that the lawsuit should not proceed as a class- action because conversion rates vary depending on the advertiser. In particular, he said that some ads have "higher conversion rates on parked domain and error page Web sites than on other websites," according to the court's ruling. To arrive at his conclusion, Mr. Mothner examined aggregate data from four search marketers that his firm represents. That move, however, appears to have paved the way for the marketers who are suing to learn the identities of Mr. Mothner's clients -- despite Google's allegation that its contract with those marketers includes confidentiality provisions. "It was Google (or Mothner) who put the Wpromote clients' identities at issue in the first place, so it cannot use confidentiality provisions to shield itself from disclosing their identities now," Judge Lloyd wrote. He gave Google until Dec. 22 to comply. Google has not yet responded to a request from Online Media Daily for comment. But it appears from court papers that the company has not yet disclosed the information; instead, Google appears to have asked Judge Lloyd to modify his order. The plaintiffs filed papers alleging that Google "is in violation of a court order" because it had not yet turned over information about the search marketers. GSI GROUP: Court Sets Feb. 16 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------- GSI Group, Inc.'s settlement of a securities class action lawsuit will be heard for final approval on Feb. 16, 2011, according to the Company's Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010. On December 12, 2008, in connection with the delayed filing of its results for the quarter ended September 26, 2008, and the announcement of a review of revenue transactions, a putative shareholder class action alleging federal securities violations was filed in the United States 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. A lead plaintiff, Mason Tenders District Council Trust Funds, was appointed on May 8, 2009. 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 February 27, 2007 and June 30, 2009. On October 12, 2010, the United States District Court approved an order granting the parties' Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class and for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The United States District Court has set February 16, 2011, as the date for the final Settlement Fairness Hearing. Although the settlement agreement has not yet been approved by the United States District Court, the total settlement amount has been deposited into an escrow account. If the settlement is approved by the United States District Court, the Company's contribution to the settlement amount will be limited to the balance of the Company's self-insured retention. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal Still Pending in "Skold" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- An appeal remains pending from a court's denial of class certification in the case Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company, according to HP's Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010. Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is a lawsuit in which HP was joined on June 14, 2004, that is pending in state court in Santa Clara County, California. The lawsuit alleges that HP (along with Intel) misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class. On February 27, 2009, the court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion for nationwide class certification for a third time. The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fairness Hearing on Inkjet Suit Set for Jan. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A fairness hearing has been set for January 28, 2011, to determine whether to grant final approval of Hewlett-Packard Company's proposed settlement of certain class action lawsuits over its inkjet printer products, according to HP's Dec. 15, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010. HP is involved in several lawsuits claiming breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. * A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On January 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion for summary judgment. On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions. On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for April 9, 2010 was postponed. * A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2010, but was taken off the calendar. * A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on May 22, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images and text. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only damages class. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2010, but was taken off the calendar. * Four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett- Packard (Canada) Co., are pending in Canada, one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2010, one of the Quebec cases was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed classes, which agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes final. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible class members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed $5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or printer supplies through HP's website. As part of the proposed settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members with additional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionality and to change the content of certain software and user guide messaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printer cartridges. In addition, class counsel and the class representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved by the court. On October 1, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The court has scheduled a fairness hearing on January 28, 2011 to determine whether to grant final approval of the proposed settlement. HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Baggett" Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ A hearing to consider final approval of a settlement entered into by Hewlett-Packard Company and plaintiffs of a class action, Baggett v. HP, will be convened on January 31, 2011, according to the Company's Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010. Baggett v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP on June 6, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that HP employs a technology in its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely, thus preventing customers from using the toner that is allegedly left in the cartridge. The plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the printer shuts down. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. On September 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. On November 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named plaintiff. On November 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary judgment ruling with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiff entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on behalf of the proposed class, which agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes final. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, eligible class members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed $5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or printer supplies through HP's website. In addition, class counsel and the class representative will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved by the court. On October 13, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The court has scheduled a fairness hearing for January 31, 2011 to determine whether to grant final approval of the proposed settlement. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend Suits Over FLSA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company continues to be involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of its subsidiary Electronic Data Systems Corporation or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws, according to the Company's Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010. Those matters include: * Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging similar facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of the class in the consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter. * Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed in November 2006 in California Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in California were misclassified as exempt employees. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which, on January 7, 2008, certified a class of information technology workers in California. On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is pending. Two other purported class actions originally filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009, allege similar facts. The Karlbom case is pending in San Diego County Superior Court but has been temporarily stayed based on the pending motions in the Steavens consolidated matter. The George case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham and Steavens cases. INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: FCStone Still Defending Consolidated Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- International Assets Holding Corporation continues to defend itself against a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in Missouri, according to the company's Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 On September 30, 2009, International Assets Holding Corporation completed its acquisition of FCStone Group, Inc., pursuant to the merger of FCStone and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. As a result of this transaction, the Company issued approximately 8.2 million shares of its common stock to the former shareholders of FCStone, and FCStone became a wholly owned subsidiary of International Assets Holding Corporation. FCStone Group Inc. and certain officers of FCStone were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008. A consolidated amended complaint was subsequently filed on September 25, 2009. The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between November 15, 2007 and February 24, 2009, seeks to hold defendants liable under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly false statements and failure to disclose adverse facts relating to an interest rate hedge, the bad debt reserve of FCStone and losses sustained by FCStone in connection with a customer's energy trades. FCStone filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint, along with supporting documents, on November 24, 2009. On November 16, 2010, the Court denied FCStone's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint on or before December 15, 2010. INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Assets Holding Corporation is awaiting a court ruling on FCStone Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Missouri, according to the company's Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. On September 30, 2009, International Assets Holding Corporation completed its acquisition of FCStone Group, Inc., pursuant to the merger of FCStone and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. As a result of this transaction, the Company issued approximately 8.2 million shares of its common stock to the former shareholders of FCStone, and FCStone became a wholly owned subsidiary of International Assets Holding Corporation. A purported shareholder derivative action was filed against FCStone Group, Inc., (solely as a nominal defendant) and certain officers and directors of FCStone in August 2008 in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in May 2009 to add claims based upon the losses sustained by FCStone arising out of a customer's energy trading account. On July 2, 2009 FCStone filed a motion to dismiss and supporting documents. On July 7, 2009, the same plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the existing case to add a purported class action claim on behalf of the holders of FCStone common stock. On July 8, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed against FCStone and its directors, as well as International Assets Holding Corporation and International Assets Acquisition Corporation in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri by two individuals who purported to be stockholders of FCStone. The plaintiffs purported to bring this action on behalf of all stockholders of FCStone. The complaint alleged that FCStone and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with the contemplated acquisition of FCStone by International Assets Holding Corporation. The complaint also alleged that FCStone, International Assets Holding Corporation and International Assets Acquisition Corporation aided and abetted the directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought to permanently enjoin the transaction between FCStone and International Assets Holding Corporation, monetary damages in an unspecified amount attributable to the alleged breach of duties, and legal fees and expenses. The plaintiffs did not succeed in enjoining the transaction. This complaint was subsequently consolidated with the complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, and will fall under the jurisdiction of that court. A combined, amended complaint was served on the defendants in January 2010. All of the defendants intend to defend against the complaint vigorously. The defendants filed a notice to dismiss in February 2010, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to this in April 2010 and supplemental filings were made in September and October 2010. ISRAEL FUEL COS: Face NIS1.4-Bil. Class Action Over "Hot Fuel" -------------------------------------------------------------- Chen Ma'anit at Globes reports that a NIS1.4 billion class action suit was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court on Dec. 26 against Israel's leading fuel companies: Paz Oil Company Ltd., Delek Israel Fuel Corporation Ltd., Sonol Israel Ltd. and Dor Alon Energy in Israel (1988) Ltd. The suit claims that the companies have been systematically cheating consumers by selling gasoline at temperatures that are higher than the international standard and thus raising their profits by tens of millions of shekels annually. Gasoline's volume expands when heated. The lawyers filing the suit explained that the fuel companies buy the gasoline at 15 degrees centigrade, the international standard, but sell it at higher temperatures, where the volume is thus higher but the amount of energy it generates is lower. In this way the companies increase their profits. The class action suit says that the fuel companies achieve this by storing gasoline above ground so that it naturally heats up in Israel's warm climate. The suit claims that this practice is "unacceptable and bordering on the criminal." JP MORGAN: Accused of Manipulating Silver Bar Financial Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cafferty Faucher LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of a class that includes purchasers and sellers of the iShares Silver Trust (NYSE- Arca "SLV") and the ETF Securities Ltd. Silver Trust (NYSE-Arca "SIVR") during the period March 1, 2008 through the present. The lawsuit alleges that JPMorgan, the custodian of silver backing SLV securities and the sub-custodian of silver backing SIVR securities, and HSBC, the custodian of silver backing the SIVR securities, manipulated and suppressed the price of silver bar financial products, including SLV and SIVR, in violation of Section 9 of the Securities Exchange Act. If you purchased or sold the iShares Silver Trust ETF (NYSE-Arca "SLV") or the ETF Securities Silver Trust (NYSE-Arca "SIVR") securities during the period March 1, 2008 through the present, you may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff within 60 days. The lawsuit, Case No. 1:10-cv-07768, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on December 7, 2010 and is currently assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr. The case is also brought on behalf of investors who purchased or sold CME Group Inc's "COMEX" silver futures or options contracts which are traded electronically through the Chicago-based "GLOBEX" platform and through COMEX. On behalf of these investors, the lawsuit alleges violations of the anti-manipulation provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. In addition to the claims under the anti-manipulation provisions of the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act, the lawsuit also alleges that defendants violated federal antitrust law. Cafferty Faucher LLP -- http://www.caffertyfaucher.com-- with offices in Chicago, Philadelphia and Ann Arbor, Michigan, is a national litigation firm that represents investors, businesses and consumers who have been injured by illegal marketplace practices. Firm contact information is available at the above Web site. The firm has recovered tens of billions of dollars for its clients in cases targeting illegal acts and practices in a variety of industries including securities, commodities, insurance, pharmaceuticals, banking services, medical, high-tech, food and beverage, construction materials, and many others. Combined, the firm's attorneys have hundreds of years of experience working to recover losses on behalf of clients. KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS: Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- On October 4, 2010, a purported class action and derivative lawsuit was filed related to the then-pending merger of Keithley Instruments, Inc., into a subsidiary of Danaher Corporation pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 29, 2010, by and among the Company, Danaher and Aegean Acquisition Corp. The case, Donald Freidlander v. Danaher Corporation, Brian R. Bachman, James B. Griswold, Leon J. Hendrix, Jr., Brian J. Jackman, Joseph P. Keithley, N. Mohan Reddy, Thomas A. Saponas, Barbara V. Scherer and Keithley Instruments, Inc., was filed on October 4, 2010, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Case No. CV 10 738257). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger and that Danaher aided and abetted the Company's directors in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought by the plaintiff included a declaration that the action is properly maintainable as a derivative and class action, a declaration that the merger is unlawful and unenforceable, an injunction barring the merger, rescinding (to the extent already implemented) the merger or any of the terms thereof and the payment of costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On November 15, 2010, counsel for all parties reached an agreement in principle regarding the settlement of the Action. The parties are waiting for court approval of the settlement, according to the company's December 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. On December 8, 2010, the Company completed the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Aegean Acquisition Corp. was merged into the Company and each outstanding Common Shares and Class B Common Share of the Company was converted into the right to receive $21.60 per share in cash. LTX-CREDENCE: Faces Four Merger-Related Suits in Calif. & Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- LTX-Credence Corporation is facing four separate lawsuits in California and Massachusetts over its proposed merger with Verigy Ltd., Alisier Limited, Lobster-1 Merger Corporation, a wholly- owned subsidiary of Verigy Ltd., and Lobster-2 Merger Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alisier Limited. On November 22, 2010, the Company, its directors, Lobster-1 Merger Corporation, and Lobster-2 Corporation, were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Carneau v. LTX- Credence Corp., et. al., 110-cv-188153, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California. That action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of stockholders, alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value, obtain the best financial and other terms, sell the Company in a fair process, and act in the best interests of public shareholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly. The complaint further alleges that the non-LTX-Credence defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, including to enjoin the Company and Verigy from consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs. On November 23, 2010, the Company and its directors were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Shah v. Tacelli, et. al., No. 10- 4580, filed in the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts. That action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of stockholders, alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value, obtain the best financial and other terms, sell the Company in a fair process, and act in the best interests of public shareholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly. The complaint further alleges that LTX-Credence aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, including to enjoin the Company and Verigy from consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs. On December 6, 2010, the plaintiff served document requests on the Company. On November 30, 2010, the Company, its directors, Lobster-1 Merger Corporation, and Lobster-2 Corporation, were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Keuler v. LTX- Credence Corp., et. al., 1:10-cv-12058, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. That action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of stockholders, alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value, obtain the best financial and other terms, sell the Company in a fair process, and act in the best interests of public shareholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly. The complaint further alleges that the non- LTX-Credence defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, including to enjoin the Company and Verigy from consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs. On December 3, 2010, the Company, its directors, Lobster-1 Merger Corporation, and Lobster-2 Corporation, were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint, captioned Krieger v. LTX- Credence Corp., et. al., No. 10-04713, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. That action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of stockholders, alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value, obtain the best financial and other terms, sell the Company in a fair process, and act in the best interests of public shareholders, and seeking to benefit themselves improperly. The complaint further alleges that the non- LTX-Credence defendants aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, including to enjoin the Company and Verigy from consummating the merger, in addition to fees and costs. The Company believes that the claims asserted in these suits are without merit. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued a liability for any of these actions as of October 31, 2010. MCDONALD'S CORP: Accused of Violating Computer Privacy Laws ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that McDonald's, CBS, Mazda and Microsoft use their Internet ads as a cover for data-mining, to identify the Web sites people visit, invading people's privacy, misappropriating their personal information and interfering with the operations of their computers, a class action claims in Federal Court. "Defendants acted in concert with [nonparty] Interclick, mining consumers' web browser histories for entries of particular relevance to defendants' respective, customized advertising campaigns," the complaint states. Lead plaintiff Sonal Bose, of New York, N.Y., included Does 1-50 as defendants. She claims McDonald's committed its offenses, including violations of computer privacy laws, through its online World Cup-theme game in the summer of 2010. CBS did it in an online ad campaign for its "online fantasy sports platform" before the 2010 Major League Baseball season began; Mazda did it in ads for its summer sales and 2010 models, and Microsoft did it during a 7-month ad campaign for its Windows Smartphone, according to the complaint. All of them worked with Interclick, which is not listed as a defendant. The complaint claims that "Interclick specialized in 'behavior advertising,' that is, Interclick tracks individual consumers to collect information about their web-browsing activities, which it compiled in individual profiles and analysis to determine which advertisements to display to which consumers. Interclick continually updates its database of consumer profiles with information acquired from and about consumers in its online advertising campaigns. . . . "Interclick augmented its profile database with individual-level information it acquired from defendants in the process of optimizing and measuring the success of advertising campaigns. For example, defendants and Interclick cooperated to identify [which] consumers are 'hand raisers' who clicked on an advertisement to visit the advertiser's website, register to enter the advertisers' sweepstakes or play online games, or make purchases. "Interclick's profiles are stored and analyzed in a data warehouse designed to allow Interclick to mine and correlate the large volumes of highly granular consumers data it acquires." The class claims Interclick has "maintained consumer profiles since June 2007," and that it "significantly increased its data warehousing and analysis capabilities in early 2010. Interclick has stated that it 'organizes and valuates billions of data points daily to construct the most responsive digital audiences for major digital marketers.'" The class claims that the defendants and Interclick "used browser history sniffing to identify defendants' competitors with whom consumers communicated," and that "all the consumer information Interclick acquired while executing an ad campaign for any one defendant was merged into Interclick's consumer profile database and subsequently used for behavioral targeting on behalf of all defendants." Ms. Bose seeks statutory and class damages for computer fraud and abuse, violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violations of state business law, trespass to personal property, breach of implied contract, and tortious interference with contract. The class also wants all its personal data collected in this way deleted, wants the defendants enjoined from doing it again, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and notice and a choice about whether they want their data mined. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stampley, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 100 Wall Street 23rd floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 MEDCATH CORP: Court Strikes Class Allegations v. Bakersfield Unit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Medcath Corporation's subsidiary, Bakersfield Heart Hospital, obtained a court order on November 24, 2010, striking certain class allegations against it, according to Medcath's Dec. 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. During October, 2009, a purported class action law suit was filed by an individual against the Bakersfield Heart Hospital, a consolidated subsidiary of the Company. In the complaint the plaintiff alleges that under California law, and specifically under the Knox-Keene Healthcare Service Plan Act of 1975 and under the Health and Safety Code of California, California prohibits the practice of "balance billing" for patients who are provided emergency services. On November 24, 2010, the court granted the Bakersfield Heart Hospital's motion to strike plaintiff's class allegations. META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Two Stockholder Suits in Iowa ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meta Financial Group, Inc., is facing two separate lawsuits accusing the Company of violating federal securities laws, according to the Company's Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. The Company has been informed that two former stockholders, Thirumalesh Bhat and Alaa M. Elgaouni, have separately filed purported class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. The cases were filed on October 22, 2010 and November 5, 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between May 14, 2009 and October 15, 2010. The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made during this period by the Company and its officers. The complaints do not specify an amount of damages sought. The Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously pursue its defense. META FINANCIAL: Still Defending Suits Over Certificates of Deposit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Meta Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit involving the sale of certificates of deposits, according to the Company's Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported MetaBank certificates of deposit continue to be addressed. Since its filing of Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, three such lawsuits have been settled for a payment and dismissed with prejudice: (i) the matter of Methodist Hospitals of Dallas v. MetaBank and Meta Financial Group, Inc., filed in the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, TX, Cause No. 08-06994: (ii) the matter of St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., as assignee and subrogate of Lemont National Bank, v. Metabank, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:09-cv-01031; and (iii) Coreplus Federal Credit Union and Waterbury CT Teachers Federal Credit Union, v. MetaBank and Meta Financial Group, filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern Division, Case No. 09-cv-4130. In all, nine cases have been filed to date, and of those nine, three have been dismissed, and four have been settled for payments that the Company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the costs of litigation. Of the two remaining cases, one is a class action case. On May 5, 2010, in that class action, Guardian Angel Credit Union v. MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB (USDC, District of NH), the court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify the class. Additionally, a lawsuit relating to this matter has been filed by Airline Pilots Assoc Federal Credit Union in the Iowa District court for Polk County, Case number CL-118792. The underlying matter was first disclosed in the Company's quarterly report for the period ended December 31, 2007, which stated that an employee of the Bank had sold fraudulent CDs for her own benefit. The unauthorized and illegal actions of the employee have since prompted a number of demands and lawsuits seeking recovery on the fraudulent CDs to be filed against the Bank, which have been disclosed in subsequent filings. The employee was prosecuted, convicted and, on June 2, 2010, sentenced to more than seven years in federal prison and ordered to pay more than $4 million in restitution. Notwithstanding the nature of her crimes, which were unknown by the Bank and its management, plaintiffs in the two remaining cases seek to impose liability on the Bank under a number of legal theories with respect to the remaining $3.6 million of fraudulent CDs that were issued by the former employee. The Bank and its insurer, which has assumed defense of the action and which is advancing defense costs subject to a reservation of rights, continue to vigorously contest liability in the remaining actions. MICROSOFT CORP: Calif. Schools Get Class Action Settlement Money ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Barrientos, writing for The Bakersfield Californian, reports more than 200 local schools will receive several thousands of dollars for technology purchases as part of a 2006 lawsuit settlement involving Microsoft. It's the second round of funding from a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in which $1.1 billion was awarded to California users of Microsoft software. Nearly 900 education agencies and 7,400 schools received $25 million this time, according to the California Department of Education. The money can be used to buy computers, software, connect classrooms to the Internet and provide teacher tech training. "This funding to help school districts purchase technology comes at a critical time when schools continue to struggle because of severe budget cuts," said state Superintendent Jack O'Connell in a statement. The lawsuit started in 1999 when 27 California consumers and businesses filed a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft alleging unfair competition over the sale of certain operational and software systems. Microsoft settled and a fund called "Cy Pres" was made to benefit the state's poorest schools. School districts apply for that money through the Education Technology K-12 Voucher Program. To be eligible, schools must have at least 40 percent of students from low-income families. They get anywhere from $50 to $100 per student. Roughly 230 local schools and education agencies will receive money, and Kern's high schools received the most. Golden Valley High, for example, will get $14,104. For a full list of local school recipients, go to The Californian's education blog, The Grade, at bakersfield.com/blogs. On the Net: http://www.edtechk12vp.com/ Tulare Schools Get Settlement Victor Garcia, writing for Visalia Times-Delta, reports many Tulare County schools received a small portion of a $25 million state settlement agreement with Microsoft for the purchase of technology. Most Tulare City School District, Tulare Joint Union High School District and Visalia Unified School District campuses received a portion of the settlement. Money not claimed by individual consumers was put into a fund for educational agencies. A list of some of the schools and the amount received: TCSD * Cypress School: $3,570 * Heritage School: $3,134 * Mulcahy Middle School: $3,368 * Wilson School: $2,249 TJUHSD * Mission Oak High School: $5,254 * Tulare Union High School: $9,753 * Tulare Western High School: $9,987 * Sierra Vista High School (Continuation): $1,105 VUSD * El Diamante High School: $10,481 * Redwood High School: $10,273 * Mineral King Elementary: $3,654 * Veva Blunt Elementary: $3,378 NEW SOUTH WALES: May Face Suit Over Legal System Computer Flaw -------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Jopson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports children and adults wrongly arrested and detained because of systemic computer problems are the subject of a planned class action that would add millions to compensation already paid by the state government. A group of Sydney lawyers is planning the litigation over a legal system computer flaw that has led to dozens of people, including children, being wrongfully arrested and often falsely imprisoned. In the past financial year alone, NSW Police paid more than $2.7 million to 22 people, including five juveniles, after officers made unlawful arrests wrongly alleging bail condition breaches. The police computer system did not contain accurate information, the government has revealed in parliamentary papers. "It's kind of Kafkaesque. We've been running a campaign on this and we've made 10 separate representations to the state government since 2007 without success," said Edward Santow, the chief executive of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which plans litigation to force a solution. "The Attorney-General's Department says there is a problem with the police. The police say it is the Attorney-General. Meanwhile, you have the terrible injustice of people being arrested and detained overnight. "It's a terrible waste of money. Even if you don't care about human rights, or people who may or may not have committed a crime, surely you care about the pointless expense." The system flaw meant that when a bail condition such as an 8:00 p.m. curfew expired or was removed, the information was not communicated to police, who then arrested and, in many cases, locked up people innocent of a breach, Mr. Santow said. "They go before a court. The court records are accurate and the police say 'sorry' and the state ends up with a compensation payment on its hands." The 22 matters already settled or resulting in court orders for compensation averaged a payout of $124,000 each. They involved some related claims of false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution, the government told the Greens MP David Shoebridge in a budget estimates meeting. There have been more payouts of as much as $200,000 in the 2010 financial year, with more in the pipeline, the center says. Its legal team has found 10 more people aged 13 to 19 alleging wrongful arrest who may join the litigation, planned in conjunction with a Sydney legal practice whose name is yet to be made public. Mr. Santow said the planned litigation was designed to "jolt the government" into action after individual cases had made no difference. Children with offences as minor as shoplifting or traveling without a train ticket had been held overnight in police cells or juvenile detention with more serious offenders, said a solicitor at the center, Laura Brown. She said police often failed to make adequate inquiries and ignored other options such as a caution. A disproportionate number of indigenous children had been wrongfully arrested. She said a 17-year-old girl who was in the city with friends was arrested for breaching a bail condition that included being with her mother at all times. The condition had been lifted two weeks before. The police said the bail conditions still applied, even though her mother offered to fax the order proving otherwise. A spokesman for the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, said: "We have received correspondence from PIAC in recent weeks and we are examining the issues raised." A spokeswoman for the Police Minister, Michael Daley, said it was a matter for the Attorney- General. NORTH ORANGE COUNTY: Calif. App. Ct. Rules on Sheppard Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District reversed, in part, and affirmed, in part, a trial court ruling in the action, James Sheppard, v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program, No. G041956 (Calif. App. Ct.). Mr. Sheppard was a part-time instructor employed by NOCROP, which was created by four public school districts. During his employment, Mr. Sheppard was required to spend 20 minutes of unpaid time preparing for every hour he spent teaching. Mr. Sheppard sued NOCROP and sought compensation for his unpaid preparation time by asserting claims for violation of the minimum wage law, pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission's wage order No. 4-2001 and Labor Code section 218, breach of contract, and quantum meruit. Mr. Sheppard's first amended complaint also contained class action allegations. Following a series of challenges to Mr. Sheppard's pleadings, judgment was entered in favor of NOCROP. Mr. Sheppard contends the trial court erred by (1) ordering judgment on the pleadings as to the violation of the minimum wage law claim contained in the first amended complaint; (2) sustaining, without leave to amend, NOCROP's demurrer to Mr. Sheppard's breach of contract claim as contained in the original complaint; and (3) sustaining, without leave to amend, NOCROP's demurrer to his quantum meruit claim as contained in the third amended complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order granting judgment on the pleadings as to the violation of the minimum wage law claim. Mr. Sheppard alleged he was employed by a regional occupational program which was the creation of one or more public school districts through Education Code section 52301. The Court of Appeals concluded the minimum wage provision in Wage Order No. 4-2001 applies to Mr. Sheppard's employment with NOCROP. The Court of Appeals also held that the Legislature has plenary authority over public school districts and was constitutionally authorized to vest in the IWC, through section 1173, the power to impose the minimum wage law provision contained in Wage Order No. 4-2001 as to employees of such public school districts. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the trial court's order granting judgment on the pleadings as to the violation of the minimum wage law claim. The Court of Appeals also reversed the order sustaining NOCROP's demurrer to Mr. Sheppard's breach of contract claim. California Supreme Court precedent establishes that a public employee has a contractual right to earned but unpaid compensation, which is protected by the state Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer to the quantum meruit claim because the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, Sec. 810 et seq.) bars the assertion of such a claim against a public entity. A copy of the Court of Appeal's December 23 Opinion, written by Judge Richard D. Fybel, is available at http://is.gd/jGBTbfrom Leagle.com. NOVELL INC: Faces 14 Class Suits Over Proposed Attachmate Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Novell, Inc., is facing 14 class action lawsuits in Delaware and Massachusetts that accuse the Company of breaching its fiduciary duties in relation to its merger with Attachmate Corporation, according to the Company's Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010. On November 21, 2010, Novell entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Attachmate Corporation and Longview Software Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Attachmate -- Merger Sub. The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into Novell, with Novell continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Attachmate. In November and December 2010, individuals or entities claiming to be the Company's stockholders filed putative class action lawsuits challenging the Company's pending merger with Attachmate. As of December 7, 2010, ten actions had been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, one action had been filed in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, and three actions had been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. All of the actions are brought against the members of the Company's Board of Directors, and all but one of the actions also name the Company as a defendant. In addition: (i) all of the actions except for one name Attachmate as a defendant; (ii) all of the actions except for two name Merger Sub as a defendant; (iii) seven of the actions name CPTN as a defendant; (iv) three of the actions name Microsoft and Elliott Associates, L.P. as defendants; (v) two of the actions name the company's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer as a defendant; and (vi) one of the actions names "Golden Gate Private Equity," "Francisco Partners," and "Thoma Cressey Bravo," as defendants. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company's directors failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties with regard to the Company's pending merger with Attachmate by failing to maximize the Company's value to its public stockholders and that the entities named in the complaints aided and abetted those alleged breaches. Two of the actions also allege, among other things, that the Company's directors failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties with regard to the pending patent sale to CPTN Holdings, LLC. The plaintiffs seek orders that, among other things, certify the cases as class actions, enjoin the Company's merger with Attachmate, award plaintiffs and the putative class damages in the event that the Company's merger with Attachmate is consummated, and award plaintiffs costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The Company believes that there are substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims and intend to pursue them vigorously. NOVELL INC: Appeal Pending in SilverStream Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals remain pending in the securities class action lawsuit against SilverStream Software, Inc., according to Novell, Inc.'s Dec. 13, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010. SilverStream, which Novell, Inc., acquired in July 2002, and several of its former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters who handled SilverStream's two public offerings, were named as defendants in several class action complaints that were filed in July 2001. The complaints were filed by former stockholders of SilverStream who purchased shares of SilverStream common stock between August 16, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The original complaints were closely related to similar complaints brought against 309 other issuers and underwriters, and allege violations of U.S. Securities laws, including that there was undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters and that false information prepared by the underwriters resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to stockholders. A Consolidated Amended Complaint with respect to all of these complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, on April 19, 2002. While Novell believes that SilverStream and its former officers and directors have meritorious defenses to the claims, various parties, including the many underwriters, participated in settlement discussions and reached a proposed settlement agreement. After notice to the plaintiff class, the settlement agreement received final approval from the Court on September 10, 2009. Certain parties have filed Notices of Appeal from the Court's decision. Novell believes it is probable that any settlement payment will be covered by its insurance carrier. Thus, Novell does not believe that resolution of this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. OHIO: Lead Monitor Appointed in Juvenile Justice Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- On December 21, 2010, Federal Judge Algenon Marbley appointed Will Harrell to serve as the lead monitor in S.H. v. Stickrath. He will head a team of experts supervising State efforts to comply with a federal court order requiring reforms in the treatment of youth held in custody by the Department of Youth Services. The sweeping order helps move Ohio's juvenile justice system from one of over-incarceration to one of rehabilitation through evidence- informed practices; both contributing to cost savings and public safety. Mr. Harrell succeeds the interim monitor Vince Nathan, appointed two months ago after the resignation of Fred Cohen. The role of lead monitor is a complex one. It is designed not only to hold the state accountable for compliance under the order but also assists the state in adopting best practices where appropriate. This partnership among the parties and the State promotes the best outcomes for the state, local communities, youth and their families. Mr. Harrell is no stranger to this complexity. He has extensive experience in juvenile justice and conditions of confinement and has held positions such as the chief ombudsman for the Texas Youth Commission, public policy director of the Southern Policy Law Center, chair of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, and executive director of the ACLU of Texas. Mr. Harrell's human rights background spans internationally as well. He holds a J.D. and an LL.M from American University, Washington College of Law, and has prosecuted human rights abuses in Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Haiti, the Bahamas, the US and elsewhere. He supervised elections in Bosnia Herzegovina, represented political asylum seekers from various countries, and represented migrant farm workers in Colorado. "We are excited to have Will Harrell serve in this role," states Kim Brooks Tandy, executive director of the Children's Law Center, Inc. and one of the plaintiffs' counsel for S.H. v. Stickrath. "We submitted his name after an extensive search for a candidate who had both hands-on experience in addressing similar issues in other states, as well as a strong national perspective that can contribute to better outcomes for Ohio youth in these facilities," she adds. In May 2011, the State will have been under the stipulation for three years. The State of Ohio has been working collaboratively to undertake different aspects of the settlement but there is still a lot of work to be accomplished. It is critical that progress continues. Mr. Harrell, once named one of 35 people shaping the future of Texas, seems well-suited to help do the same in Ohio. ONEIDA COUNTY: Social Services Sued Over Food Stamp Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims the Oneida County Department of Social Services has a policy of "deterring, discouraging, and preventing persons from filing applications for food stamps, Medicaid, cash assistance and emergency assistance, in violation of federal and state law and regulations." A copy of the Complaint in Howard, et al. v. Soldato, Case No. 10-cv-01557 (N.D.N.Y.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/27/CivRts.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel C. Young, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC. 472 South Salina Street, Suite 300 Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 703-6591 - and - Susan Antos, Esq. EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER 119 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12210 Telephone: (518) 462-6831 PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend "Amason" Suit in Alabama -------------------------------------------------------- The Pantry, Inc., continues to defend itself against a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. On Oct. 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit against The Pantry in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v. Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W). The plaintiff seeks class action status and alleges that The Pantry included more information than is permitted on electronically printed credit and debit card receipts in willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g). The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice. The company believes that there are substantial factual and legal defenses to class certification and to the theories alleged in the lawsuit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. As the case is at a very early stage, the company cannot at this time estimate its ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to this lawsuit. No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an independently operated convenience store chain in the United States. PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Kansas ----------------------------------------------------------- The Pantry, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits over motor fuel delivery, according to the company's Dec. 14, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country against numerous companies in the petroleum industry. Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the industry have been named as defendants in these lawsuits. The company has been named as a defendant in seven cases: -- one in Florida (Cozza, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-80156-DMM, filed on Feb. 16, 2007; -- one in Delaware (Becker, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-00136, filed on March 7, 2007; -- one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL, filed on March 7, 2007); -- one in Alabama (Snable, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC, filed on March 26, 2007; -- one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed on June 5, 2007; -- one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed on July 13, 2007); and -- one in South Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed on Sept. 24, 2007. Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of the cases, including the seven in which the company is named, have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy. These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices. In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which the company is named, plaintiffs also have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons, defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel. The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and punitive damages. Both types of cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21, 2008. A number of the defendants, including the Company, subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable "political questions." The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009. Defendants filed a request to appeal that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in June 2010. That request was denied on August 31, 2010. In May 2010, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature controls and certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class for damages. Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision to the Tenth Circuit in June, and that request was denied on August 31, 2010. The company continues to believe that there are substantial factual and legal defenses to the theories alleged in these lawsuits, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this stage of proceedings, the company cannot estimate its ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits. The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an independently operated convenience store chain in the United States. PAVARINI MCGOVERN: Sued for Diverting Trust Funds Under Lien Law ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Exterior Fabricators, LLC, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, v. Pavarini McGovern, LLC, et al., Case No. 652369/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. December 22, 2010), brings claims against the general contractor for non-payment of $483,002 owed to the Plaintiff under a subcontract agreement. The Plaintiff agreed to provide the general contractor with labor, materials and equipment in connection with the fabrication, furnishing and installation of an exterior wall panel system and windows at the real property and improvements known as 66-70 W. 45th Street, New York, which is owned by defendant Waterscape Resort LLC. The Plaintiff relates that it fully, satisfactorily and timely performed the work required of it including additional and extra work the general contractor directed it to do, and that its work was fully accepted by the general contractor and the owner of the Premises. The Plaintiff tells the Court that, pursuant to the New York State Lien Law, on November 8, 2010, within eight months from the last day on which the Plaintiff provided the labor, materials and equipment at the Premises, it filed with the New York County Clerk, a Notice of Mechanic's Lien for $483,002 against the Premises. The Plaintiff says that pursuant to the Lien Law, the Notice of Mechanic's Lien has priority over the mortgage held by U.S. Bank N.A. against the Premises. The Plaintiff states that Waterscape violated Section 77 of the Lien Law when it made unauthorized, illegal, unjustified and improper diversion of the funds it received pursuant to a building loan mortgage from U.S. Bank, which under Article 3-A of the Lien Law, constitute trust funds required to be held by Waterscape in trust and used only for the purpose of paying for the labor, materials, equipment, and services relating to the improvement of the Premises. The Plaintiff asserts the same claims against Pavarini for diversion of payments received from Waterscape on account of the improvement of the Premises. The Plaintiff asks the Court to decree, among other things, that it has a valid and subsisting lien upon the interest of the defendants in the Premises, for $483,002, plus interest at 12% thereon from August 26, 2010; that it is entitled to enforce and foreclose its liens against the premises; and that if it is determined that it did not have a valid and subsisting lien against the Premises, that it be granted personal judgment against Pavarini for $483,002, plus interest at 12% from August 26, 2010. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to decree that its Notice of Mechanic's Lien has priority over the mortgages held by defendant U.S. Bank against the Premises. The Plaintiff is represented by: Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq. AGOVINO & ASSELTA, LLP 330 Old Country Road, Suite 201 Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 248-9880 PHILIP MORRIS: Minn. Court Reinstates Portions of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Collins, writing for Minnesota Public Radio, reports the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Dec. 28 reinstated portions of a nearly 10-year-old, class action lawsuit against Philip Morris that claims the company fraudulently marketed Marlboro Lights as a safer cigarette. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 cleared the way for class action suits against cigarette companies that manufacture "light" cigarettes. The surprising 5-4 decision paved the way for the state actions. Since then, there have been numerous lawsuits filed around the country with mixed results. Class action suits have been certified in Massachusetts, Minnesota and Missouri. Judges in eight other states have rejected attempts to certify similar classes, according to the Concord (NH) Monitor. A judge in New Hampshire in November certified a similar lawsuit as a class action, in what could be the largest case in that state's history. In Minnesota, however, the Court of Appeals ruled the suit cannot proceed against Philip Morris' owner, Altria. It said the two are different corporations. However the court reversed an October 2009 district court ruling that threw out the claims that Philip Morris "could not be sued for false advertising, consumer fraud, and deceptive trade practices regarding light cigarettes in violation of Minnesota consumer-protection statutes." The group filing the suit claims the tobacco company marketed the Marlboro Lights as safer than a typical cigarette. Memos uncovered during the Minnesota tobacco litigation in the '90s revealed the company knew the claim to be false. The memos acknowledged that consumers who smoked "low tar" or "light" cigarettes, took longer "drags" on them, negating any benefit. The lower court had also ruled that the settlement negotiated between then Attorney General "Skip" Humphrey's office and Philip Morris barred the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals on Dec. 28 reversed that ruling. "The Tobacco Settlement does not provide any remedy for individual consumers who claimed to have been injured by Philip Morris's violation of consumer-protection laws," the court said in rejecting the tobacco company's claims. "Now that this important consumer-protection lawsuit can proceed, I look forward to it going to the trial in the near future," Edward Sweda, the senior attorney for the Tobacco Products Litigation project said. PNC FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Refinancing Fee --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Coolidge, writing for the Cincinnati Enquirer, reports a Cincinnati lawyer has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against PNC Financial Services Group after the lender slapped her with a $135 fee when she refinanced her mortgage with another lender. Ellen Essig, the local lawyer, refinanced her mortgage in September with Cleveland-based Third Federal Savings and Loan, which held her original home loan. Pittsburgh-based PNC charged Ms. Essig the fee in connection with her home equity line of credit. Ms. Essig's home equity loan provides that a fee be charged when PNC agrees to subordinate its loan to another creditor. Home equity loans are typically subordinated to first and even second mortgages. Ms. Essig says the clause in her home equity agreement is vague and should not be allowed to charge her the fee after refinancing her mortgage, in court papers. She adds the bank even overcharged her, noting the clause spells out a $100 subordination fee. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Western Pennsylvania, is seeking damages and a court order to ban PNC from collecting similar fees. The lawsuit also seeks class action status for similar cases since Dec. 24, 2004. PNC officials declined to comment on the lawsuit. The bank is the nation's No. 5 home equity lender with $23.8 billion in outstanding loans as of Sept. 30, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Ms. Essig deferred comment to her own lawyer, Jeffrey Norton in New York. "It's so vague -- It's preying on unsuspecting borrowers," he said. "It allows them to attach fees whenever they want." PROSPECT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits related to its merger with Ivy Holdings Inc. and Ivy Merger Sub Corp., according to the company's Dec. 20, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. On August 16, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Ivy Holdings Inc. and Ivy Merger Sub Corp., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ivy Holdings. Following the announcement of the merger, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, each of the Rollover Investors, each of the special committee members, the Buyer, the Merger Sub, and Leonard Green. These complaints allege generally that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted others' breaches of fiduciary duties, in connection with the proposed transaction with the Company by, among other things, authorizing the transaction for what plaintiffs claim to be inadequate consideration and pursuant to what plaintiffs claim to be an inadequate process. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction against the proposed merger, rescission of the merger or rescissory damages to the putative class if the merger is completed and an award of costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. Defendants believe the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the suits. On December 15, 2010, the Company's stockholders approved the Merger Agreement at a special meeting of stockholders. With the closing of the merger, shares of Prospect common stock ceased trading in the Nasdaq Global Market and will be delisted. The Company expects to pay expenses relative to the merger aggregating amounts ranging from $13,000,000 to $15,000,000 (unaudited). REMEC INC: Appeals on California Securities Suit Dismissed Sept. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Remec, Inc., disclosed that appeals from the final judgment in a securities class action lawsuit in California were dismissed on September 1, 2010, according to the Company's Dec. 13, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2010. On September 29, 2004, three class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, which were consolidated into a single case, alleging that between September 8, 2003 and September 8, 2004 the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information regarding the Company's financial condition, operations and future business prospects in violation of federal securities laws. Four motions seeking Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment were filed with the Court, three by the Defendants and one by the Plaintiffs. On April 21, 2010, the Court issued an Order on the motions, granting Defendants' motions for Summary Judgment based on scienter and loss causation. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed that final judgment be entered for Defendants. On May 21, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. On June 2, 2010, the Defendants filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. On August 30, 2010, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the parties agreed to request dismissal of the Appeal and Cross Appeal, exchange releases, and accept the final judgment of the District Court. The agreement does not include the payment of any money by the Company or its insurers. The appeal and cross appeal were dismissed on September 1, 2010. The suit is In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-1948 (S.D. Calif.) (Miller, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 617-1200 Facsimile: (213) 617-1975 - and - David W. Mitchell, Esq. LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 - and - Blake Muir Harper, Esq. HULETT HARPER STEWART, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1133 Facsimile: (619) 338-1139 Representing the defendants is: Robert W. Brownlie, Esq. DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY, US, LLP 401 "B" Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 699-2700 Facsimile: 858-677-1401 RENTECH INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif. Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Rentech, Inc., which is pending in California, remains stayed to allow parties to discuss a settlement, according to the company's Dec. 14, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. Between December 29, 2009 and January 6, 2010, three purported class action shareholder lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the Company and the named current and former directors and officers made false or misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance in connection with its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. Plaintiffs in the actions purport to bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Rentech securities between May 9, 2008, and December 14, 2009 and seek unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The cases were consolidated as Michael Silbergleid v. Rentech, Inc., et al. (In re Rentech Securities Litigation), Lead Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), and a lead plaintiff was appointed on April 5, 2010. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 20, 2010, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 15, 2010. The matters are currently stayed to allow the parties to discuss settlement. At this time, the Company does not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company. Rentech, Inc. -- http://www.rentechinc.com/-- is focused on providing clean energy solutions. The company is focusing on the deployment of the Rentech Process and the Rentech-SilvaGas biomass gasification technology (Rentech-SilvaGas Technology) through both licensing of its technology and development of facilities to produce synthetic fuels and chemicals, natural gas substitutes, and electric power from renewable and fossil feedstocks. RINO INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears -------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders of RINO International Corporation (formerly Nasdaq:RINO) (OTCBB:RINO) are reminded of the securities class action lawsuit filed against RINO and certain of its officers. The class action (Civil Action No.: 10-cv-1908) pending in the Central District of California is on behalf of a class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired RINO securities during the period from May 15, 2008 through November 17, 2010, inclusive. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. RINO, through its subsidiaries, operates as an environmental protection and remediation company in the People's Republic of China. The Company engages in designing, manufacturing, installing, and servicing wastewater treatment and flue gas desulphurization equipment primarily for use in the iron and steel industry, and anti-oxidation products and equipment for use in the manufacture of hot rolled steel plate products. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company did not enter into at least two customer contracts and 20-40% of the Company's other contracts had problems for which it reported revenues during its 2008 and 2009 fiscal years; (2) that the Company's reported revenues for fiscal year 2009 to the SEC were inflated by 94%; (3) that the Company's management was draining cash from the Company for its own business and personal uses; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 10, 2010, Muddy Waters LLC, a research firm issued a report calling into question, among others, the Company's customer relationships, accounting, and financial results. The research firm claimed that its investigation indicated that RINO had fabricated customer relationships, exaggerated sales, and issued phony financial statements. In particular, the report highlighted that the same day that RINO closed a $100 million financing transaction, certain officers/directors "borrowed" $3.2 million from the Company to purchase a luxury home in Orange County, California. On this news, shares of RINO declined by $2.34 per share, more than 15%, to close on November 10, 2010, at $13.18 per share, on unusually high volume. The stock further declined another $2.08 per share, or 15.08%, to close on November 11, 2010, at $11.10 per share after launching an internal review into Muddy Waters' allegations. Then on November 15, 2010, RINO announced extremely disappointing third quarter 2010 results with revenues of $52.7 million and net income of $8.8 million, just over half the net income reported on the prior year. RINO also reduced its revenue forecast for 2010 from $221-$229 million to $203-$211 million. On this news, RINO's shares declined $3.46 per share, or more than 31%, to close on November 15, 2010, at $7.55 per share. On November 19, 2010, RINO disclosed in a filing with the SEC that it had received a letter from its independent auditing firm which recounted a conversation between a member of the firm and RINO's Chief Executive Officer, defendant Zou Dejun, during which Dejun revealed that RINO had, in fact, not entered into two of the six customer contracts discussed in the Muddy Waters report. Furthermore, the independent auditors advised that its audit reports of the Company's previously issued financial statements for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and its reviews of the Company's quarterly financial statements for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and its reviews of the Company's quarterly financial statements for periods between March 31, 2008 and September 30, 2010 should no longer be relied upon. When RINO's shares resumed trading on the OTC on December 8, 2010 after being halted by NASDAQ on November 17, 2010, the stock further declined $2.92 or 48% and closed at $3.15 per share. If you are a shareholder who purchased RINO securities during the Class Period, you have until January 14, 2011 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/ To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. SANTARUS INC: Faces Suit Alleging Labor Violations in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- In a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 13, 2010, Santarus, Inc., disclosed that on December 8, 2010, a complaint styled as a putative class action was filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by a person employed by the Company as a sales representative and on behalf of a class of similarly situated current and former employees of the Company. The complaint seeks damages for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law 650 Section et. seq and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Such alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other damages. SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS: Still Faces Securities Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Searchmedia Holdings Limited and certain of its officers continue to defend itself against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed by shareholders in California, according to the company's Dec. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A shareholder complaint was filed on September 13, 2010, by Sid Murdeshwar against SearchMedia Holdings, the former Ideation officers and directors and certain of the SearchMedia Holdings' officers and directors as a purported class action on behalf of the shareholders of SearchMedia Holdings in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case was filed under the caption Sid Murdeshwar, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SearchMedia Holdings Limited f/k/a Ideation Acquisition Corp., Robert N. Fried, Phillip Frost, Rao Uppaluri, Steven D. Rubin, Glenn Halpryn, Thomas E. Beier, David H. Moskowitz, Shawn Gold, Garbo Lee, Paul Conway, Qinying Liu, Earl Yen, and Jennifer Huang, Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of SearchMedia Holdings violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements regarding Ideation's acquisition of the target company, SearchMedia International and by overstating SearchMedia International's financial results. The complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants are liable for the alleged misrepresentations as controlling persons. The complaint seeks certification of a class of SearchMedia Holdings' shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired SearchMedia Holdings securities between April 1, 2009, and August 20, 2010, an award of compensatory damages, an award of reasonable fees and costs incurred in this action, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. SHEREMETYEVO AIRPORT: Stranded Passengers to File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- RIA Novosti reports lawyers of stranded passengers are preparing a multi-million ruble class action suit against Moscow's Sheremetyevo and Domodedovo airports, lawyer Sergei Zhorin said. Thousands of passengers remain stranded at the airports following an ice storm that hit the entire territory of Central Russia over the weekend. Hundreds of flights have been canceled and delayed as severe freezing rain caused serious power outages. Some 20,000 passengers have been affected by the weather. "The situation in the airports, according to our information, is inadmissible: prices for food have been inflated tenfold; airlines are not providing hotels or meals to clients, which is against the law," Mr. Zhorin said, adding that taxi fares have been illegally hiked as well. "We plan to file a class action lawsuit from all those affected, which could be over 1,000 people, and the claim amount could be unprecedented for Russia," he said. Mr. Zhorin said airport authorities are capable of influencing the situation with the growing prices in airports. "We see collusion here and plan to prove it in court," he said. Earlier on Dec. 28, passengers angered by massive disruptions of flights from Sheremetyevo Airport reportedly attacked several employees of Russia's largest air company, Aeroflot, which the airport later denied. Russian Transport Minister Igor Levitin criticized the Aeroflot management, saying he had "questions" for the company. President Dmitry Medvedev has instructed prosecutors to check whether airport authorities and air carriers have taken "all necessary measures" to comply with legislation on air transportation and passenger services in emergency situations. SSI INVESTMENTS: Holds $0.8MM Cash for Class Suit Defense Costs --------------------------------------------------------------- In its Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2010, SSI Investments II Limited disclosed that at October 31, 2010, the Company had approximately $0.9 million of restricted cash; approximately $0.8 million is held voluntarily to defend named former executives of SmartForce PLC for actions arising out of an SEC investigation and litigation related to the 2002 securities class action. On October 7, 2010, the Company's Board of Directors approved a settlement in the amount of approximately $0.9 million of an indemnification claim made by former officers of SmartForce. The settlement amount was paid on November 22, 2010. The remaining $0.1 million of restricted cash is held in certificates-of-deposits with a commercial bank pursuant to terms of certain facilities lease agreements. STATER BROS: SBM Diaries Settles "O'Connor" Suit ------------------------------------------------ Stater Bros. Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary SBM Dairies, Inc., has entered into a settlement of a wage-hour lawsuit, according to the company's Dec. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2010. In December 2008, an action by Dennis M. O'Connor, et al. was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court against Santee Dairies, Inc., d/b/a Heartland Farms seeking individual and potential class action monetary damages for time spent by non-exempt hourly paid employees for changing into and out of sanitary uniforms. On September 23, 2010 following mediation the case was settled. Under the settlement agreement, the settlement amount will be paid pursuant to procedures for filing and approval of claims for members of the certified class with a portion of any unclaimed amounts returned to SBM Dairies, Inc. Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/-- through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets, operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout Southern California. SUNCOR ENERGY: Judge Blocks Gas Station Owners' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports an Ontario judge has blocked efforts by Sunoco gas station owners to launch a $200-million class action law suit against Suncor Energy Products Inc. In a ruling issued on Dec. 17, Judge Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the agreement between Suncor and some 241 gas station owners doesn't trigger the provisions of Ontario franchise law that would have paved the way for the suit to proceed as a class action. The case flows from the merger between Suncor and Petro-Canada, which took effect on Aug. 1, 2009. The $19-billion deal brought some significant changes to independent gas stations operating under the Sunoco brand. Canada's competition regulator required that Suncor and PetroCan divest almost 200 gas stations in Ontario. Several of Suncor's Ontario gas station franchisees received word their franchise agreements would be terminated. The gas station owners therefore launched a class action proceeding against Suncor in January, 2010. They argued that Suncor's actions violated an Ontario franchisee law called the Arthur Wishart Act. The ensuing litigation came to a head earlier in December. The key moment in class actions lawsuits is usually the hearing where plaintiffs' lawyers ask a judge to "certify" the proceeding. In this case, however, lawyers for both Suncor and the gas station owners agreed to delay that hearing. Instead, they argued motions for summary judgment, with each side asking the judge to apply the Arthur Wishart Act to the facts and determine who should win. Judge Perell ruled in Suncor's favor, though in his written decision he notes that it is "inevitable" his judgment will be appealed. Indeed, David Sterns, lawyer for the plaintiff gas station owners, confirmed that an appeal will be the next step: "We are appealing it directly to the Court of Appeal. We think that the decision is not consistent with the principles that have been established by the Court of Appeal in matters relating to disclosure under the Arthur Wishart Act." Larry Lowenstein, litigation partner with Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Toronto, argued the case for Suncor. While he realizes the matter will likely be appealed, he said it is notable to have a judge rule on a $200-million lawsuit within a year of its launching. Earlier in 2010, Ontario changed its Rules of Civil Procedure to make it possible to expedite cases by making it easier to bring matters to a decision using motions for summary judgment. Mr. Lowenstein said: "This is high stakes, winner-takes-all litigation, and so far, so good, as far as our client is concerned. It's a melding of the summary judgment rule plus the class actions proceeding which so successful here. Going forward, I make no secret of the fact that this is going to be part of the defense lawyers' arsenal." T-MOBILE USA: Sued for Inflating Fees Passed on to Subscribers -------------------------------------------------------------- Genevieve Meyer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-05858 (N.D. Calif. December 23, 2010), accuses the telecommunications carrier of assessing Cal-USF fees based on the aggregate calculation of intrastate, interstate, and international telecommunications services, despite the prohibition against said charges being based on interstate or international revenues (which would interfere with the Fed-USF), thus inflating the five Cal-USF specific charges it is allowed to lawfully pass to subscribers via its subscribers' phone bills. Ms. Meyer explains that the Telecommunications Act, which was passed by Congress in 1996, and is promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, requires carriers to contribute to a federal Universal Service Fund -- Fed-USF. Carrier contributions to the Fed-USF are calculated according to each carrier's specific interstate and international telecommunications revenues. Carriers are allowed to pass along the costs of fulfilling their Fed-USF contribution obligations to their subscribers in accordance with FCC guidelines. States may also implement similar Universal Service programs provided that said programs do not rely on or burden the funding of the Fed-USF. California has a Universal Service program -- Cal-USF -- which is funded by assessing only intrastate revenues. Ms. Meyer says that because T-Mobile already assesses fees for compliance with Fed-USF based on interstate and international revenues, the unlawful inclusion of those revenue in the calculation of Cal-USF fees results in "double-billing" T-Mobile's subscribers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Mark Punzalan, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 398-8700 E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com mpunzalan@finkelsteinthompson.com - and - Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq. LITIGATION LAW GROUP 1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 238-9610 E-mail: gmf@classlitigation.com TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Obtains Final Approval of Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gave final approval in October of the settlement of a consolidated complaint alleging backdating of stock options against Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 20, 2010, Form 10-KT filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the transition period from November 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010. In February and March 2006, four purported class action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its then current and former officers and directors in the SDNY Court. The actions were consolidated, and in April 2007 the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint which contained allegations related to purported "hidden content" contained in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the backdating of stock options, including the investigation thereof conducted by the Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and the restatement of the company's financial statements relating thereto. The complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chairman of the Board, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and one officer and one former officer of the company's Rockstar Games subsidiary. The lead plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs including attorneys' fees and expenses. In April 2008, the Court dismissed, with leave to amend, all claims as to all defendants relating to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and certain claims as to the company's former CEO, CFO and certain director defendants relating to the backdating of stock options. In September 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended consolidated complaint seeking to reinstate these claims which the company opposed. On Aug. 31, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the lead plaintiffs to comprehensively settle all claims asserted by them against the company, its Rockstar Games subsidiary and all of the current and former officers and directors named in the actions. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company will pay approximately $20.1 million into a settlement fund for the benefit of class members, approximately $15.3 million of which will be paid by the company's insurance carriers and the balance of approximately $4.8 million has previously been accrued for in the company's financial statements. In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company will also supplement the substantial changes that it has already implemented in its corporate governance policies and practices. The proposed settlement is subject to the completion of final documentation and preliminary and final approval by the SDNY Court. Neither the company, its subsidiary nor any of the individuals admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement agreement. On June 29, 2010, the SDNY Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and scheduled a fairness hearing to be held on Oct. 12, 2010. In accordance with the terms of the settlement $20.1 million was placed into an escrow fund for the benefit of class members. The Company's insurance carriers contributed $15.3 million of this payment, and the Company contributed $4.8 million, which had previously been accrued for in the company's financial statements. In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company will also supplement the substantial changes that it has already implemented in its corporate governance policies and practices with certain additional changes. On October 12, 2010, the Court gave its final approval to the settlement, and subsequently issued its Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal on October 19, 2010. No appeal of the Court's Judgment was filed by the deadline of November 18, 2010. Neither the Company, its subsidiary nor any of the individuals admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement agreement. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: St. Clair Derivative Action Now Concluded --------------------------------------------------------------- Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., disclosed in its Dec. 20, 2010, Form 10-KT filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the transition period from November 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, that the St. Clair Derivative Action has been concluded. In January 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System filed a purported class and derivative action complaint in the SDNY Court against the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its directors and certain former officers and directors. Certain of the factual allegations in this action are similar to those in the securities class action described above. The plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duty by selling their stock while in possession of certain material non-public information and that the company violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder by failing to disclose material facts in the company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the company solicited approval to increase share availability under its 2002 Stock Option Plan. The plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged insider trading conducted by the individual defendants who sold the company's stock, unspecified compensatory damages with interest and its costs in the action. In March 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss the complaint based on, among other things, the Committee's conclusion that "future pursuit of this action is not in the best interests of Take-Two or its shareholders." In August 2007, the plaintiff filed an Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint alleging, among other things, that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the issuance of proxy statements from 2001 through 2005. In September 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint or to consolidate certain of its claims with the securities class action. In July 2008, the Court dismissed all claims against the company and all claims against all defendants that arose out of the plaintiff's derivative claims. The Court expressly did not determine whether these claims would entitle the putative class to monetary damages, but invited briefs from the individual defendants on this point. In October 2008, these individuals moved to dismiss the remaining claims against them. Briefing was concluded as of January 16, 2009. On September 15, 2009, the case was reassigned to Judge Sullivan, who denied the pending motions to dismiss without prejudice pending an October status conference. At that status conference, the Court reinstated the motions to dismiss, and oral argument on those motions was held November 23, 2009. Those motions to dismiss were granted in their entirety on September 9, 2010, and the deadline for any appeals to be filed expired on October 13, 2010. The case is now concluded. UNITED STATES: Court Won't Re-Open Age Discrimination Suit v. FAA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Timothy O'Hara's request to re-open an age discrimination class action complaint asserted against the Federal Aviation Administration. The original complaint was commenced in 2005 by Malachy Coghlan, in behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated persons, on allegations that his employer, the FAA, discriminated against him and other FAA employees on the basis of age. Mr. O'Hara was named co-plaintiff in the amended complaint. In March 2008, the District Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to initiate administrative proceedings within the 45-day period in which they were required to and thus, entered judgment in favor of FAA. Under his Motion to Re-Open, Mr. O'Hara argued that the enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 warrants a ruling vacating the 2008 judgment entered by the District Court. Under the Act, each paycheck resulting from the original compensation decision or other practice triggers a new filing period during which a claim challenging the original compensation decision may be timely brought, even if the compensation decision itself was made long before. The 2008 judgment in the O'Hara case was final and not subject to appeal when the Little Ledbetter Act took effect, Judge Friedman opined. A copy of Judge Friedman's December 23, 2010 Order is available at http://is.gd/jCFVhfrom Leagle.com. WELLCARE HEALTH: Settles Securities Class Action for $200-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Tampa Bay Business Journal reports WellCare Health Plans Inc. has signed an agreement finalizing the terms of a $200 million settlement in a securities class action lawsuit. The settlement, which still requires court approval, is intended to resolve all the claims that are the subject of the class action, WellCare said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The case stemmed from allegations of health care fraud. The material terms of the agreement are substantively the same as WellCare disclosed in August, the filing said. The company said it would make a cash payment of $52.5 million within 30 days after the court approves the settlement and another $35 million by July 31, 2011. WellCare also said it would issue tradeable unsecured bonds with an aggregate face value of $112.5 million, a fixed coupon of 6 percent and a maturity date of Dec. 31, 2016. WellCare (NYSE: WCG), headquartered in Tampa, provides managed care services targeted to government-sponsored health care programs. WPCS INTERNATIONAL: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Pignataro" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Class Action Reporter on September 23, 2010, reported that WPCS International Incorporated faced a purported class action lawsuit captioned Pignataro v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., 5801- ,filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Sept. 7, 2010, complaint claims breach of fiduciary duty in connection with a purported offer to acquire the company. WPCS disclosed in its Dec. 15, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2010, that on December 9, 2010, the company obtained a stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice to a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and its directors -- Pignataro v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al. WPCS International Incorporated -- http://www.wpcs.com/-- is a design-build engineering company that focuses on the implementation requirements of communications infrastructure. The company provides its engineering capabilities including wireless communication, specialty construction and electrical power to the public services, healthcare, energy and corporate enterprise markets worldwide. * US Drug Watchdog Wants Trial Law Firms to Handle Darvon Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The US Drug Watchdog is saying, "while the US FDA is warning patients, who have been prescribed Darvon, Darvocet, or generic propoxyphene to stop using these medications immediately, we want to add-save the pills, or their container in a safe place-as these may become important evidence." They say, "if you have you, or a loved one suffered from abnormal heart rhythms, heart attacks, or other heart problems while taking Darvon, Darvocet, or the generic propoxyphene, please call us immediately at 866-714-6466." Darvocet, or Darvon victims can also contact the US Drug Watchdog via its Web site at http://USDrugWatchdog.com What are the symptoms experienced by many Darvocet, or Darvon pain pill users? The US Drug Watchdog indicates the serious side effects that they are aware of with respect to Darvocet, or Darvon users are as follows: * Heart Arrhythmia * Heart Attack * Suicide * Overdose * Sudden Death The US Drug Watchdog is the premier private pharmaceutical watchdog in the United States. They say, "we appreciate there are numerous lawsuits, and or class actions over the Darvocet, or Darvon pain pill heart attacks, sudden deaths, and serious heart damage. There are numerous attorneys, and law firms involved; tragically most of the attorneys, or law firms advertising for help with heart conditions, heart attacks, or even sudden death after using Darvocet, or Darvon are middlemen marketing law firms- not the actual trial law firms, that will prosecute these cases. We want to make certain the Darvocet, or Darvon victims get to the actual trial law firms, or attorneys, that have the best record in achieving significant results for their clients-period-not a middleman marketing law firm." Federal Case No. 2:10-cv-04455 ********* 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. Leah Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2011. 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 * * *