/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110113.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 13, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 9 Headlines ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Similac AMBAC FINANCIAL: Veera Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss BALDOR ELECTRIC: Feb. 15 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement CANADIAN RECORD LABELS: Settle Copyright Class Action ERIE INDEMNITY: Wants Insurance Department to Handle Class Suit EVERHOME MORTGAGE: 3rd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of "Martino" Suit GUAM: Police Officers File Class Action Over Overtime Pay HONDA MOTOR: Vehicle Owners Still Face Transmission Problems ILLINOIS BELL: Sued for Not Paying Overtime to Workers JASMINE LTD: New Jersey Court Approves Class Action Settlement LOCKLEAR ELECTRIC: Feb. 4 Hearing Set for Faxed Ad Class Action MISSION, B.C.: May Face Class Action Over Grow-Op Inspections NAKHEEL: May Face Class Action Over Stalled Real Estate Projects RALPHS GROCERY: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration SANFORD BROWN: Class Action Heads to Appellate Court SNACKABLE MEDIA: Class Actions Over Premium Content Fees Settled SO. CALIF. UNIV.: Appeals Court Upholds Certification TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Certifies Prius Headlights Class Action TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Antitrust Class Actions U.S. BANCORP: Mass. Homeowner Foreclosure Class Action to Resume VODAFONE GROUP: Law Firm Plans to Include Data Breach in Suit VERITAS SOFTWARE: SEC Fair Fund Consents Due by April 19, 2011 WAGON WHEEL: Lawyer Wants Court to Junk Puppy Mill Suit Appeal WASHINGTON COUNTY, NY: May Take Financial Hit From Class Action WEGIVETOGET LLC: Settles Charity Fraud Class Action * U.S. Shareholder Class Actions Over Mergers on the Rise ********* ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Similac ---------------------------------------------------- Michelle Massey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports a class action has been filed against the manufacturers of Similac baby formula which was recalled in September for possible contamination by beetles. John L. and Jennifer M. O'Neil filed suit against Abbott Laboratories Inc. (Delaware) and Abbott Laboratories on Dec. 16 in Tangipahoa District Court. The defendant removed the case to federal court in New Orleans on Jan. 4. According to the lawsuit, the parents gave their two-month old baby Similac Isomil Sensitive beginning in September. The parents state their baby began suffering diarrhea shortly thereafter. Their doctor recommended switching formulas and subsequently, the infant recovered. At the end of September, the defendants issued a voluntary recall order after small common beetles were found at its Michigan manufacturing facility. The parents argue that the products were contaminated to such an extent that their baby was sickened and required medical treatment. The defendants are accused of negligence by breaching their duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent infants from being sickened by the "tainted Similac." "The Abbott defendant's conduct was committed with conscious or reckless disregard for the rights of plaintiffs and their minor child and those similarly situated and were grossly negligent and unreasonable," the lawsuit states. The proposed class will include consumers who purchased Similac Advanced, Similac Sensitive and Similac Go and Grow in 2010 and who fed the Similac product to infant children who then subequently became sickened. The proposed class is asking for an award of no more than $10,000 for each named plaintiff, court costs and interest. The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick W. Pendley of Pendley, Baudin & Coffin in Plaquemine and William A. Grimley in Baton Rouge. A jury trial is requested. U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier is assigned to the case. Case No. 2:11-cv-00011 Mr. Pendley may be reached at: Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN L.L.P. Post Office Drawer 71 24110 Eden Street Plaquemine, Louisiana 70765 Telephone: (888) 725-2477 Facsimile: (225) 687-6398 AMBAC FINANCIAL: Veera Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Harold Baer Jr. denied the defendants' request to dismiss the class action, Karthikeyan V. Veera, v. Ambac Plan Administrative Order Committee, et al., Case No. 10-CV-4191 (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff is a former employee of Ambac Financial Group, Inc., who held Ambac stock as part of an employer-sponsored Savings Incentive Plan. Plaintiff purports to represent a class of all Plan participants who held Ambac stock through the Plan between October 1, 2006 and July 2, 2008. Ambac's publicly traded stock fell sharply during the Class Period, and Ambac filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on November 8, 2010. Plaintiff claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by continuing to offer Ambac stock as part of the Plan when they knew or should have known of Ambac's impending decline. The Amended Complaint targets two categories of defendants, the Plan Investment Committee and Plan Administrative Committee and its individual members, who allegedly violated their duty of prudence, and the Compensation Committee and its members, who allegedly violated the duty of monitoring. The Defendants' principal position is that they were under no fiduciary obligation to remove or diversify the Ambac stock in the Plan. They argue that because the Plan required the offering of Ambac stock, they had no discretion to eliminate it; since they exercised no control over the offering of Ambac stock in the Plan, the inclusion of the stock in the Plan creates no fiduciary liability for them. Judge Baer, among other things, noted the Court cannot help but conclude that monitoring fiduciaries failed to provide sufficient attention, if any, to the risks of the continued purchase and retention of Ambac stock. A copy of the Court's January 6, 2011 Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/kxpTFfrom Leagle.com. About Ambac Financial Ambac Financial Group, Inc., headquartered in New York City, is a holding company whose affiliates provided financial guarantees and financial services to clients in both the public and private sectors around the world. Ambac Financial filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in Manhattan (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 10-15973) on November 8, 2010. Ambac said it will continue to operate in the ordinary course of business as "debtor-in-possession" under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of the Bankruptcy Court. Ambac's bond insurance unit, Ambac Assurance Corp., did not file for bankruptcy. AAC is being restructured by state regulators in Wisconsin. AAC is domiciled in Wisconsin and regulated by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin. The parent company is not regulated by the OCI. Ambac's consolidated balance sheet -- which includes non-debtor Ambac Assurance Corp -- showed $30.05 billion in total assets, $31.47 billion in total liabilities, and a $1.42 billion stockholders' deficit, at June 30, 2010. On an unconsolidated basis, Ambac said in a court filing that it has assets of ($394.5 million) and total liabilities of $1.6826 billion as of June 30, 2010. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., as trustee to seven different types of notes, is listed as the largest unsecured creditor, with claims totaling about $1.62 billion. The Vanguard Group, Inc., holds 5.46% of the stock of Ambac and is its largest shareholder. Peter A. Ivanick, Esq., Allison H. Weiss, Esq., and Todd L. Padnos, Esq., at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP represent the Debtor. The Blackstone Group LP is the Debtor's financial advisor. Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC is the claims and notice agent. Anthony Princi, Esq., Gary S. Lee, Esq., and Brett H. Miller, Esq., at Morrison & Foerster LLP, in New York, serve as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes AMBAC BANKRUPTCY NEWS. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding undertaken by Ambac Financial Group Inc. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) BALDOR ELECTRIC: Feb. 15 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wanda Freeman, writing for The Times Record, reports a lawsuit brought by an Arkansas shareholder against Baldor Electric Co. should be settled by mid-February, if everything goes according to schedule. In the lawsuit -- filed as a class action the day after the announcement that Switzerland-based ABB would purchase Baldor for $4.2 billion -- shareholder John Cottrell alleged Baldor's directors had breached their fiduciary duty by failing to obtain a price that reflected the true future value of the shares. ABB had agreed to buy Baldor's stock for $63.50 per share, representing a 41% premium over the Nov. 29 closing price of $45.11. Since then, Baldor and ABB as well as the banks involved in the merger have contributed to a list of disclosures to justify the share valuation, and attorneys for both sides of the case have negotiated a memorandum of understanding that contemplates a settlement. According to a scheduling order issued on Jan. 6 by Sebastian County Circuit Judge James O. Cox, the parties have agreed to complete further "confirmatory discovery" by Feb. 4 and attempt to execute a stipulation of settlement by Feb. 11. Finally, Judge Cox will hold a hearing on preliminary approval of the proposed settlement at 3:00 p.m. on Feb. 15. A settlement of that and several similar shareholder lawsuits will free Baldor and ABB to focus on the merger in progress, Baldor spokesman Tracy Long said on Jan. 3. The disclosures filed in the Cottrell case were also filed to help settle two cases in St. Louis. ABB on Dec. 8 commenced its tender offer for all outstanding shares of Baldor's common stock. The offer expires Jan. 10. The deal, expected to close in the first quarter of this year, includes $1.1 billion in debt. CANADIAN RECORD LABELS: Settle Copyright Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- EMI Music Canada Inc., Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. have reached an agreement to pay songwriters and music publishers for outstanding "pending list" claims and to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit. The current music licensing system allows for recordings to be issued without pre-clearance from copyright owners but subject to licensing agreements with CMRRA and SODRAC, who represent most publishers and songwriters. The vast majority of royalties owing for such sales have always been and will continue to be paid promptly by the record labels. The proposed agreement settles all alleged copyright infringement liability related to that small minority of unlicensed works that have accumulated over the years. The proposed agreement also establishes a new mechanism that will expedite future payments of mechanical royalties to music rights holders. "The major record labels are to be commended for their efforts in resolving this matter," said Jon Foreman, a partner at Harrison Pensa LLP and co-counsel for the plaintiff. "This agreement reflects the respect the major record labels have for their unpaid rights holders. This is a very good result for songwriters and music publishers." "This is a very positive outcome for all parties," said Graham Henderson, President, Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), on behalf of EMI Music Canada, Sony Music Entertainment Canada, Universal Music Canada and Warner Music Canada. "I commend the counsel representing rights holders and the major record labels for their constructive approach in reaching an agreement and their diligence in working through highly complex issues." "In this case, copyright owners have been well-served by a timely and reasonable resolution of a complex problem. We look forward to the distribution of the outstanding payments in accordance with the settlement," said plaintiff's counsel Paul Bates of Bates Barristers. Under the agreement, the record labels will pay approximately $45 million to resolve all disputed claims related to their past music releases in audio and video formats and to settle a copyright infringement class action lawsuit commenced in 2008. The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the record labels. The agreement is subject to approval by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The agreement was arrived at with the active participation of the two Canadian licensing collectives, the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA), and Societe du droit de reproduction des auteurs, compositeurs et editeurs au Canada (SODRAC). David Basskin, the President and CEO of CMRRA, said, "This agreement with the four major labels resolves all outstanding pending list claims. EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner are ensuring that the net result is more money for songwriters and music publishers. It's a win for everyone." Alain Lauzon, the General Manager of SODRAC, commented, "Equally welcome will be the creation of a new licensing system that will keep the pending list problem from building up again. This solution has been needed for many years." Songwriters and publishers whose works are on the pending lists are represented by Jonathan Foreman of Harrison Pensa LLP and Paul Bates of Bates Barristers. Additional information about the settlement can be found at http://www.pendinglistssettlement.com/ ERIE INDEMNITY: Wants Insurance Department to Handle Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Leo Strupczewski, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports in August, a Fayette County Common Pleas judge rejected a summary judgment motion filed in a class-action suit against one of the state's major insurance companies. The next step, it seems, is trial. Along the way, however, there have been a series of efforts by Erie Indemnity Co. to shift the case from the court's jurisdiction to that of the state's insurance commissioner. And last month, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department teamed with Erie -- which had been sued by a class of plaintiffs for denying stacked uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under its household exclusion clause -- in petitioning the Superior Court to grant an appeal addressing that very issue. The two parties joined forces after a trial court judge refused to certify the issue, and a single judge on the front-line appellate court denied an appeal. Both argued the Insurance Department was the proper jurisdiction for the plaintiffs' issues to be heard. Though it proved unsuccessful, the joint effort shows "this case is going to end soon," said plaintiff's attorney William Radcliffe of Radcliffe & DeHaas in Uniontown. According to Erie, Judge Steve P. Leskinen's August decision denying the transfer of jurisdiction in Shultz v. Erie could set a precedent that would tie up courts with insurance-rate litigation. The Insurance Department later argued in an amicus brief accompanying the insurance company's petition that such issues are statutorily reserved for the department. Further, it argued, prior case law and the primary jurisdiction doctrine point to the Insurance Department hearing the plaintiffs' claims. Erie also argued in a petition to the Superior Court that it could be on the hook for "tens of millions of dollars" if a judge rules against them. Asked if he expected the jurisdiction argument from Erie when the case was filed, Mr. Radcliffe said it was "anticipated." He did not, however, say why that was. Scott Cooper, an attorney with Schmidt Kramer in Harrisburg who often writes friend of the court briefs on automobile insurance issues for the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, said Erie would likely want the case before the insurance commissioner for two reasons. "The insurance commissioner is probably going to be appointed by [Gov.-elect Tom] Corbett, who would be more philosophically oriented with their position," Mr. Cooper said. "That's probably one of the reasons. It'd be a main reason. The other reason is that they can say all of these exclusions are valid as long as they were approved by the Insurance Department." Terry Keating, deputy chief counsel at the Insurance Department, said the department became interested in the case once there was a potential for it to go before the Superior Court. "When that happens, we like to have our voice heard," Mr. Keating said. Mr. Keating said the genesis for the case is the 2000 Supreme Court case In re Stacking Litigation, in which the justices sent a case involving allegations of illusory coverage to the Insurance Department for resolution. "If you fast forward, what's happened since that time is there have been various court cases that have modified the law and given plaintiffs a chance for a second bite at the apple," Mr. Keating said. "All different court cases have come out that [the plaintiffs] claim whittle down [In re Stacking]. That's their claim, that the landscape has changed." Regardless of that argument, Mr. Keating said, the Insurance Department believes that it's in the best position to conduct a "technical analysis" of the claims. "Here's a really important factor: It would not serve judicial economy well to go through the entire trial . . . and then go up [to the Superior Court] and say, 'Wait, you're wrong, you should go to the Insurance Department.'" Since Judge Leskinen refused to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal by ruling the jurisdictional issue wasn't the sole issue that would determine the case, Erie has made a second and third attempt to get its case before Superior Court. A Superior Court panel rejected the insurance company's petition for interlocutory appeal in December 2007. In November, however, Erie petitioned the court to review that decision and the Insurance Department filed its amicus brief in mid-December. In petitioning the court en banc, Erie made a two-pronged argument, submitting that the claims should be dismissed and, failing that, transferred to the Insurance Department for review. In support of its dismissal argument, Erie cited the state Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Erie v. Baker. In that case, the high court ruled an insurance policy's household exclusion clause could bar the recovery of UM/UIM benefits in a claim involving a vehicle owned by the insured but covered by a different policy issued by another company. In support of its transfer argument, Erie cited the 2006 Supreme Court case Ciamaichelo v. Independence Blue Cross and the 2000 Supreme Court case In re Stacking Litigation. The Ciamaichelo decision, referred to as Ciamaichelo II, held that trial court judges should refer to the Insurance Department's regulatory jurisdiction "issues of 'sufficient complexity' that require the department's 'special competence.'" EVERHOME MORTGAGE: 3rd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of "Martino" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos and Carol Martino sued EverHome Mortgage and its law firm, Cooper, Perskie, Levenson, April, Niedelman & Wagenheim, P.A., alleging that the Defendants unlawfully charged and collected various fees and costs. The District Court granted EverHome's and Cooper's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and it subsequently denied the Martinos' motion to file an amended complaint. The Martinos appeal the denial of their motion to amend. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The Third Circuit agreed that the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. All of the Martinos' claims rely on the notion that they should not have had to pay anything more than the foreclosure judgment, plus interest and some small additional costs. The Martinos' theory of the case overlooks the fact that they were involved in several years' worth of bankruptcy proceedings involving EverHome and Cooper. As the District Court observed, one would expect the bankruptcy proceedings to give rise to an obligation to make payments exceeding the amount of the foreclosure judgment plus Sheriff's fees. The Third Circuit held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Martinos' motion to file an amended complaint. A copy of the Court's opinion is available at http://is.gd/kt2nt from Leagle.com. GUAM: Police Officers File Class Action Over Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Mindy Aguon, writing for KUAM News, reports a dozen police officers have filed a lawsuit against the Guam Police Department and the director of the Department of Administration. The officers represent more than 300 men and women on the force who have worked 43-hour workweeks without receiving overtime pay for the three extra hours they worked between March 1998 until December 2010. The plaintiffs contend they have been denied just compensation and have asked the court to order GPD and DOA to calculate and pay the amount of overtime that is due to them for work performed over 40 hours each week. Additionally the officers have asked that interest be applied at a rate of 10% per year. The lawsuit is similar to a case filed by a number of officers with the Guam Customs and Quarantine Agency that won their case to be compensated overtime for any hours worked beyond the regular 40 hours a week. HONDA MOTOR: Vehicle Owners Still Face Transmission Problems ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Jensen, writing for The New York Times, reports that despite a huge recall in 2004 and a class-action settlement in 2006, many Honda owners are still having serious problems with the automatic transmissions of their Accords, Odysseys and Pilots, requiring thousands of dollars in repairs. In some cases, transmissions have failed on vehicles recalled in 2004 for a repair that Honda told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would fix the safety defect. Meanwhile, some owners who got a warranty extension as part of the class-action settlement -- in which the plaintiff's lawyers got about $5.5 million -- are having transmission failures now that the additional coverage has expired. Angry owners of Accords -- as well as Civics, Odysseys and Pilots -- have filed a total of about 3,500 complaints with the highway safety administration, the Center for Auto Safety and CarComplaints.com, although there is likely to be some duplication. Many of the complaints have come in the last year or two. In the last six months there has been a spike in the number of complaints filed with the Center for Auto Safety, according to its executive director, Clarence Ditlow. Of the 267 transmission complaints the center received in that half-year period, 169 were from Honda or Acura owners. "It makes no sense except that there's a huge Honda transmission problem," he said. Honda owners' transmission problems are not a surprise to Dennis Madden, the chief executive of the Automatic Transmission Rebuilders Association. Mr. Madden said that in the 1990's there was a feeling that, "Wow, Honda really makes a great transmission. They last a long time." But now, he said, Honda transmissions have a reputation as troublesome. Consumer Reports' 2010 reliability survey showed "major problems" with transmissions on the 2001-3 Acura MDX and TL, the Honda Odyssey and "to a lesser extent, Accord," wrote Anita Lam, the magazine's Automotive Data Program Manager. "Honda Civics and Pilots did not seem to share this problem," she wrote in an e-mail. Michael Wickenden, the owner of CarComplaints.com, said he had almost 2,300 complaints about transmissions on 2001-3 Accords, Civics and Odysseys, far more than about any other component, he said. "Almost half of the transmission failures occur under 90,000 miles," he wrote in an e-mail. "One in five break down before the odometer hits 70,000 miles. Many formerly brand-faithful owners write they won't be buying a Honda again anytime soon." A Honda spokesman, Chris Naughton, said Honda "strives to build reliable vehicles, and the vast majority of our customers have positive experiences with their vehicles. When we identify a potential defect, Honda works to rectify it quickly and appropriately with minimum inconvenience to the customer." He also noted that the transmission problems "affect vehicles that were built over five years ago and do not affect recent or current Honda or Acura models." The 2004 recall covered about 1.1 million of Honda's most popular models. Honda told the safety administration that the problem was that "certain operating conditions can result in heat build-up between the countershaft and secondary shaft second gears." That could lead to "gear tooth chipping or, in vary rare cases, gear breakage." It is possible, the automaker said, that the transmission could lock up, increasing the chance of a crash. The models covered were the 2002-4 Odyssey; the 2003-4 Pilot; the 2001-2 Acura MDX; the 2003-4 Accord V-6; the 2000-4 Acura 3.2 TL and the 2001-3 Acura 3.2 CL. In its 2004 filing with N.H.T.S.A., Honda said it had two approaches to the recall. For vehicles with 15,000 miles or fewer, the dealer would "update the transmission with a simple revision to the oil cooler return line to increase lubrication to second gear." For vehicles with more than 15,000 miles, the dealer would "inspect the transmission to identify gears that have already experienced discoloration due to overheating." If discoloration existed the transmission would be replaced. If discoloration was not present the dealer would perform the revision to the oil- cooler return line. It was not clear from the filing how Honda would know that vehicles with fewer than 15,000 miles might not have already suffered damage. Mr. Naughton, the Honda spokesman, said the automaker had studied the issue and determined that only "prolonged operation" without adequate oil flow could cause the problem. But some owners who had the recall work done say their transmissions failed later anyway. In a complaint filed with the Center for Auto Safety, Jeremy Berens of Vienna, Va., said his 2003 Accord was recalled when it had fewer than 15,000 miles on the odometer. But it failed in December, with the mileage at about 67,000, as he tried to merge onto a busy highway. "I was nearly rear-ended and had no warning," he wrote in his complaint. "Honda has not properly fixed the recall that occurred in 2004 and are failing to recognize that a problem exists." He said Honda agreed to pay 40 percent of the repair after the district manager interceded on his behalf, but it still cost him $2,750. Mr. Berens is not alone in his disenchantment. The N.H.T.S.A. Web site has some 570 transmission complaints from owners of 2003-4 Accords. Many refer to problems with second gear. There are just over 700 transmission complaints from owners of 2002-4 Odyssey minivans. The safety agency can investigate if it appears that a recall may not have solved a safety problem. But the agency never started such an investigation. Karen Aldana, a spokeswoman for the agency, said such an inquiry was now being considered. Mr. Naughton of Honda said, "In those instances where customers experience a problem with their transmission, we encourage customers to work with their local dealer to identify and resolve the issue, which may be unrelated to the recall." The class-action suit that was settled in 2006 had been filed in the Superior Court of California for Alameda County. It claimed that Honda had misled consumers by selling them vehicles with defective transmissions. Honda denied those assertions but settled the case without admitting a defect. What owners got was an extension of the warranty on the transmission to 93 months or 109,000 miles (whichever comes first), starting when the vehicle is first purchased or leased. The normal Honda warranty was three years or 36,000 miles (and four years or 50,000 miles for Acura). The plaintiff's lawyers received nearly $5.5 million in addition to about $256,000 in expenses, according to court records. The models covered were the 2000-1 Accord; 1999-2001 Odyssey; 2000-1 Prelude; 1999-2 Acura 3.2 TL and 2001-2 Acura 3.2 CL. A small number of 2003 CL's and TL's were also covered. But now most if not all those vehicles are past the 93-month time limit and some owners are unhappy, and poorer, because their transmissions are now failing outside the warranty extension. "It is kind of upsetting," said Justin Sexton of Annapolis, Md. Last March Mr. Sexton bought a 2001 Accord driven only 31,000 miles from the estate of a family friend. He paid about $6,500. In late December, after driving it another 10,000 miles, the transmission failed. Now he's looking at a repair of $3,000 to $4,000. "I just graduated from school and am just trying to get a reliable car to get to and from work, basically," he said in an interview. "We should have looked into it before I bought it. But I just assumed because it was a Honda, Japanese, it would last forever." ILLINOIS BELL: Sued for Not Paying Overtime to Workers ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Illinois Bell Telephone Co. stiffed them for overtime, 44 workers say in a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in Lietz, et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Case No. 11-cv-____ (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/10/BellTele.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 JASMINE LTD: New Jersey Court Approves Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Reed Smith LLP Monday disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Camden Vicinage has approved the following announcement of a class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Jasmine, LTD.: TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED JASMINE, LTD. SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 15, 1993 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 20, 1995. YOU ARE HERBY NOTIFIED, that a class has been certified in this litigation by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and that a settlement in the amount of $650,000 has been reached for the benefit of this Class among the Class Representative and one of the Defendants, Fishbein & Company, P.C. If you purchased Jasmine common stock between December 15, 1993 and June 20, 1995 inclusive, you are eligible to participate in this settlement. If you want to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than April 21, 2011, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Please submit a Proof of Claim to: Jasmine LTD Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3 Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 Any questions you have about the matter in this notice should not be directed to the Court, but may be directed in writing to: John Moynihan, Esq. REED SMITH LLP Class Counsel 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 PLEASE DO NOT DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of New Jersey CONTACT: Strategic Claims Services (610) 565-9202 Fax: (610) 565-7985 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3 Media, PA 19063 LOCKLEAR ELECTRIC: Feb. 4 Hearing Set for Faxed Ad Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a hearing is set next month that will determine how much two defendants in one of a series of class actions over faxed advertisements will pay. Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian is set to consider what damages to award in a default judgment won by plaintiff Locklear Electric of Wood River. Locklear won a default judgment in the suit filed against American Business Lending and Christopher Parks last month. The hearing is Feb. 4 at 9:00 a.m. Locklear claims that the defendants violated federal laws when they faxed unsolicited ads to it and other companies. The faxes, according to the plaintiffs, resulted in increased ink and paper expenses. The suit is one of several faxed class actions that Locklear has filed in recent years in Madison and St. Clair Counties. Another suit filed in Madison against Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic remains pending. Neither Parks nor American Business Lending entered appearances in the Locklear suit. Larry Darr represents Locklear. The case is Madison case number 08-L-1131. MISSION, B.C.: May Face Class Action Over Grow-Op Inspections ------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Cooper, writing for The Province, reports there's no way Len Gratto is paying a $5,200 fine to Mission city hall for growing cucumbers in his basement. Mr. Gratto -- a 67-year-old who has lived for 30 years with his wife in their Mission home -- says he's raring to join an imminent class-action lawsuit attacking the municipality's grow-op bylaw inspections. A number of citizens, led by Mission man Stacy Gowanlock, will allege their homes were illegally searched for pot grow-ops and they were slapped with fees and repair orders costing upward of $10,000 -- all on questionable evidence. Mr. Gratto says he's never grown pot, but "laughable" evidence against him consists of pictures of some "dirt" on the basement wall and "a furnace pipe going up into the chimney, where it should be." "It's upsetting they can do this," Mr. Gratto said. "We were growing cucumbers in the basement because they wouldn't take outside." Mr. Gowanlock said he was searched in 2009 and hit with thousands in fees and repair orders despite never growing pot in his home. A lawyer could be filing his civil suit within days, he said. "I'm going to be the one that steps forward," he said. "It's the whole process. You're violating people's rights." And in a move that could potentially alter the landscape of drug enforcement in B.C., the B.C. Civil Liberties Association says it will join the battle against Mission but widen the focus into a region-wide challenge to "home grow-op bylaws." Grow-op bylaw programs, which are based on provincial legislation, allow municipal inspectors to enter homes with abnormally high hydro usage -- about 93 kilowatts per day or more -- and look for evidence of illegal marijuana grow-ops for public safety reasons. Inspectors don't have to find grow-ops, but if they find supposed residual evidence, such as high mould readings, they levy search fees and order repairs. If homeowners don't comply, homes are tagged under the bylaw and effectively condemned as unsafe, and unsellable. According to proponents, the bylaws have been phenomenally successful in driving pot production out of the Lower Mainland. In mid-December, the BCCLA's Micheal Vonn led a delegation to Mission's council, warning grounds for a class-action suit are strong, and searches are "putting innocent people under horrible duress." David Eby of the BCCLA says council was not receptive and has not responded. Even if the promised citizen-led action against Mission fell apart, the BCCLA would then likely initiate its own case. "Our concern is the program is very poorly run, and there is no due process around these massive fines," Mr. Eby said. Mission chief administrative officer Glen Robertson said he would not comment on the allegations or threat of litigation. Documents released to The Province under freedom of information law show Mission has drawn $1.43 million in revenue from Public Safety Inspection Team searches since 2008. From 2008 to 2010, there were 362 searches. In 177 cases, residents were found in contravention of the bylaw. Additionally, there were 98 RCMP grow-op inspections. Including both RCMP and PSIT searches, inspection fees of $5,200 were levied 275 times. Mission says its inspection program is revenue neutral, and paid back its startup costs by Dec. 31, 2009. Fees include funding for the RCMP, who monitor searches from the sidelines. Critics such as Mr. Gowanlock claim Mission's inspection funding scheme amounts to a "cash grab." Coun. Jenny Stevens says she initially supported the program, but now believes about half of homeowners inspected are innocent. "My biggest worry is about 50 per cent of these people were subjected to embarrassment and innuendo," she said. "I'm very concerned about the threat of litigation . . ." Mission Mayor James Atebe was unavailable for comment but told The Province in a report on this subject last November that he strongly supported the inspection program but was willing to improve it. "I don't want to lose the tool because it's imperfect," Mayor Atebe said. "Also, I don't want to keep the tool if it's encroaching on people's rights." Another current class-action suit against municipal grow-op bylaws is unfolding in Coquitlam. One of the litigants, Drew Smith, told The Province he is innocent, and his story is almost identical to the complaints made in Mission. His home was searched, no grow-op evidence was found, fees and repair orders were levied and an allegedly innocent person suffered a damaged reputation. "I had to get sedatives because I couldn't sleep at night with the stress and embarrassment in the neighborhood," Mr. Smith said. "Financially, I don't care if I get a dime [in the Coquitlam class-action suit]," he said. "I told my lawyer I don't want to sue anyone but this is not a just process, and it has to stop." NAKHEEL: May Face Class Action Over Stalled Real Estate Projects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Leigh, writing for Arabian Business, reports residents considering legal action in the face of high service fees and stalled construction of community areas in Nakheel's Jumeirah Village have a legal case, a top attorney said. "It's a very valid argument because it's safe to say that when these charges were named years ago it was done on the assumption that these people would be receiving full infrastructure in a retail community," Jonathan Davidson, managing partner at UAE- based legal firm Davidson & Co., told Arabian Business. "I don't think anyone anticipated a situation that they were just getting a house. From the investors' perspective, they have a strong argument that they haven't received what they signed up for and paid for so why should they pay." Mr. Davidson represented the claimants in a landmark decision by a Dubai tribunal last month that blocked Nakheel's attempt to raise AED41 million in late fees from a buyer on the World development. As for a group legal action, or class-action suit, Jumeirah Village "does have the makings," he said. "You've got communities with hundreds of residents who are being faced with the same demands and same problem. They've got to take a stand whether they're going to pay it or negotiate." One resident told Arabian Business that he was being asked to pay AED13,500 per annum in community service charges to receive the keys to his overdue villa, despite key amenities such as roads, park and landscaping still uncompleted. In a second Nakheel development, Discovery Gardens, the developer has yet to finish a number of facilities promised to buyers, including community swimming pools, more than two years after handover. Mr. Davidson said buyers should look closely at their contracts to determine whether service charges could be claimed in the absence of community facilities. "In terms of Nakheel's ability to do this, you have to look back at sale and purchase agreements and see if Nakheel have reserved rights to take service charges," he said. "But the first thing I would look that is whether they're allowed to do so. If you haven't had enjoyment of the property yet, why should you pay a service charge?" RALPHS GROCERY: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Rabb Mahmud brought suit against her former employer Ralphs Grocery Company on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, alleging that Ralphs violated provisions of the state Labor Code requiring employers to provide employees meal breaks, to allow rest periods, to pay for unused accrued vacation time upon termination, and to pay all wages owed upon termination. The complaint also included an action for unfair competition. Ralphs petitioned to compel arbitration, presenting evidence of an arbitration agreement signed by Ms. Mahmud, which contained a class action waiver. The trial court denied the petition, applying Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 (Gentry), which permits invalidation of contractual class action waivers in certain circumstances. The trial court found the class action waiver unenforceable because there was no practical way to vindicate the potential claimants' statutory rights outside of class litigation due to the large number of claimants with relatively small claims. Ralphs appeals, contending that Gentry has been substantially undermined by the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Preston v. Ferrer (2007) 552 U.S. 346 and Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. (2010) ___ U.S. ___ [130 S.Ct. 1758] (Stolt-Nielsen). Ralphs further contends that substantial evidence did not support the trial court's order. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, concludes otherwise and affirmed the trial court's order. A copy of the Court's opinion is available at http://is.gd/kt5xg from Leagle.com. Representing Ralph's Grocery Company are: Linda S. Husar, Esq. Steven B. Katz, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-457-8000 Facsimile: 213-457-8080 E-mail: lhusar@reedsmith.com skatz@reedsmith.com Representing the Plaintiff is: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. SPIRO MOSS LLP 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683 Telephone: (310) 235-2468 Facsimile: (310) 235-2456 E-mail: greg@spiromoss.com SANFORD BROWN: Class Action Heads to Appellate Court ---------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a class action suit against Sanford Brown College and its corporate parent is headed to the Fifth District Appellate Court. The appellate court notified Madison County Jan. 3 that it had received a plea for leave to appeal in the suit along with the supporting record on Dec. 28. The Sanford Brown class action was certified by former Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack shortly before his Dec. 3 retirement. The suit, led by lead plaintiffs Jenna and Jessica Lilley among others, claims that students at the school's Collinsville campus were misled about the career paths and job outcomes of Sanford Brown's medical assistants program. Sanford Brown and its parent, Career Education Corp., deny the claims. The defense sought to dismiss the suit claiming that the plaintiffs' claims were too individual to merit a class action and that they were attempting to sue the school for "educational malpractice." Judge Stack threw out common law fraud claims but let other claims including those made under the state's Private Business and Vocational Schools Act to stand. The class Judge Stack certified includes up to 2,400 students. Sanford Brown has faced other similar suits in recent years including individual cases and class actions. Many of those suits were brought in Missouri by attorneys including the Klamann Law Firm. The Klamann firm of Kansas City, Mo. and John Carey of St. Louis represent the lead plaintiffs and the class. James Monafo, John Richmond and others represent the defendants. The case is currently part of the docket assigned to Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge. Judge Mudge was elected to the seat left vacant by Judge Stack's retirement. The case is Madison case number 08-L-113. SNACKABLE MEDIA: Class Actions Over Premium Content Fees Settled ---------------------------------------------------------------- Several class action lawsuits naming providers of "premium content" -- e.g., products and services such as voicemail and email services provided by entities other than the Local Exchange Carriers that are available to customers for a fee that is billed to the customer's landline telephone account -- as defendants have recently been settled. The class action lawsuits involved claims that premium content charges that appeared on the landline telephone bills of landline subscribers in the U.S. were unauthorized. The premium content providers covered by the settlement are the following entities related to defendant Snackable Media LLC: Email Discounts LLC, Intelicom Messaging LLC, Email Discount Network LLC, Douglas Lambert Laboratories LLC d/b/a Orbit Telecom, Conxtr LLC, Ezsavr LLC, Residential Email LLC, Voicemail Direct USA LLC, Email Music Network LLC and Messaging Plus LLC. While the defendant denied each of these allegations of unauthorized billing, the parties involved agreed to settle the class action lawsuits and asked the court to preliminarily approve the settlement. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; it provides for cash payments and refunds for unauthorized premium content charges to class members, and attorney's fees of up to $980,000. Class members are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $14.95, or a refund of up to three months of premium content subscription charges. Members of the settlement class include any person in the U.S. and its territories who, at any time prior to December 23, 2010, was billed and paid for unauthorized premium content associated with the entities covered by the settlement. Consumers can determine whether they are class members and their eligibility to participate in the settlement, by scanning past phone records for charges from the premium content providers identified above. Consumers may also visit the following website to obtain further information about the settlement and to file a claim: http://www.landlineclassaction.com In addition to the cash payments and refunds made to class members, the premium content providers have agreed to adhere to certain guidelines for premium content sales and marketing and to remain in compliance with the Federal Communication Commission's "Anti-Cramming Best Practice Guidelines," as applicable, as well as inform landline subscribers who contact them concerning allegedly unauthorized charges of such subscribers' option to unsubscribe upon request. The premium content providers have specifically denied any wrongful conduct, and the settlement is in no way a judgment or ruling by the Court that any party engaged in any wrongful or illegal conduct. Attorneys Jay Edelson, Myles McGuire and Michael J. McMorrow of Edelson McGuire, LLC, were appointed by the Court to serve as the attorneys for the class. Full details can be found at http://www.landlineclassaction.com/ Class members may also call the claims administrator directly at 888-749-8156 or class counsel at 866-354-3015. Contact: Michael J. McMorrow Esq., EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC Telephone: (866) 354-3015 Fax: (312)-589-6378 E-mail: mjmcmorrow@edelson.com SO. CALIF. UNIV.: Appeals Court Upholds Certification ----------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, affirmed orders by a trial court denying a second petition to compel arbitration filed by Southern California University for Professional Studies and certifying a class action filed by Patricia Lee (Lee v. Southern California University For Professional Studies, No. G042174). In the appeal from the denial of SCUPS's first motion to compel arbitration, the California Court of Appeals held that simply because some members of a potential class -- not including the named plaintiff -- signed an arbitration agreement, it was improper to require those who did not sign such an agreement to arbitrate their claims. The California Court of Appeals noted that while the case has been through many procedural maneuverings since, the trial court ultimately certified a class that only included students who did not sign arbitration agreements. The California Court of Appeals concluded this was not an abuse of discretion and the class was properly certified. "Given the composition of the class, no students who signed arbitration agreements were before the court, and the motion to compel arbitration was therefore properly denied." Southern California University for Professional Studies is a private postsecondary institution in Santa Ana, California. It operates under the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, part of the California Department of Consumer Affairs. SCUPS provides educational programs, primarily through distance learning, which may lead to a number of different degrees. In July 2000, Ms. Lee enrolled as a student in SCUPS's four-year juris doctorate program. Ms. Lee filed a civil complaint alleging violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the unfair competition law. She filed the case as a putative class action under the CLRA, seeking to represent consumers similarly situated. The complaint proposed to define the class as, "All adult student consumers who enrolled in and paid the tuition charged for the materials and services supplied in a course program with SCUPS and who subsequently either voluntarily withdrew or were administratively withdrawn by SCUPS and who did not receive a refund of their paid tuition from SCUPS upon their dismissal." A copy of the court's opinion is available at http://is.gd/kiQ07 from Leagle.com. Representing Southern California University for Professional Studies are: Keith Zakarin, Esq. Edward M. Cramp, Esq. Oliver E. Benn, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101-8285 Telephone: 619-744-2200 Facsimile: 619-744-2201 E-mail: KZakarin@duanemorris.com EMCramp@duanemorris.com obenn@duanemorris.com Representing Patricia Lee are: Jean C. Wilcox, Esq. HERSHORIN & HENRY LLP 27422 Portola Parkway, Suite 360 Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Telephone: 949-859-5600 Facsimile: 949-859-5680 E-mail: jeanw@hhlawgroup.com - and - Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C. 627 208th Ave. SE Sammamish, WA 98074 Telephone: (425) 868-7813 Facsimile: (425) 868-7870 - and - Anthony L. Lanza, Esq. LANZA & SMITH P.C. 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: 888-244-3934 (Toll Free) Facsimile: 949-221-0027 TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Certifies Prius Headlights Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports a federal judge on Monday certified a class of potentially 320,000 owners and lessees of Prius hybrids who have reached a settlement with Toyota Motor Corp. over claims that their LED headlights are defective because they intermittently shut off. U.S. District Judge Manuel Real in Los Angeles scheduled a fairness hearing for the settlement on July 18. Toyota, which has admitted no fault, settled with the potential class on Oct. 4. The claims are unrelated to separate litigation over sudden unintended acceleration. Toyota has recalled more than 8 million vehicles and faces more than 200 lawsuits in multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., regarding those claims. The Prius case was filed in May 2009, one of two federal class actions against Toyota over defective headlights. The settlement includes the second action, which was filed on Feb. 16, 2010. The deal resolves claims on behalf of U.S. owners and lessees of 2006 through 2009 model Prius vehicles "originally factory equipped with genuine high intensity discharges headlights," according to court documents. The plaintiffs claimed that Toyota knew about the problem but failed to disclose it to drivers. They sued under California's Unfair Competition Law and its Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Toyota, while agreeing to settle the claims, denied allegations that the vehicles were defective or "pose a safety hazard," citing a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigation that found no problems. "Rather, the HID headlights, like any headlights, are maintenance items that have a finite life and are expected to, and do, fail before the expiration of a vehicle's life," wrote Michael Mallow, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Loeb & Loeb, Toyota's attorney. Mr. Mallow had no comment following Monday's hearing. No dollar figure was assigned in the agreement, which reimburses in cash those class members who replaced their HID bulbs within five years or 50,000 miles of driving the vehicle, according to court documents. Those class members who paid for parts and labor for replacements after five years or 50,000 miles will receive reimbursement on a case-by-case basis. The settlement will extend the warranty for class members who have yet to repair their HID headlights. Costs for each class member are estimated at between $300 and $1,800 per repair, according to court documents. Lead plaintiffs' attorney Eric Gibbs of San Francisco's Girard Gibbs said following Monday's hearing that most of the repairs have fallen in the range of $100 to $500 and that many of the class members are within the 50,000-mile cap. He hoped that the settlement would be approved, although the parties have yet to agree about attorney fees. He anticipated filing a request for fees in coming months. TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Antitrust Class Actions --------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com report two proposed partial settlements of several class action lawsuits involving Toyota and the Canadian Automobile Dealer's Association have been reached. The lawsuits allege certain automakers and trade associations conspired in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws to prevent virtually identical, but cheaper, new cars from being exported to the United States from Canada, making new vehicle prices higher for U.S. consumers. The settling defendants are Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and the Canadian Automobile Dealers' Association. The settlements are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. Toyota and CADA assert that they have acted lawfully and independently and that there is no legal or factual basis for these lawsuits. Toyota has agreed to pay $35 million for the benefit of a Class of people or businesses who bought or leased a new vehicle from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2006. CADA has agreed to pay $700,000 for the benefit of the Class. Both Toyota and CADA have agreed not to conspire with others or share certain types of information with other automakers aimed at preventing Canadian new vehicles from entering the United States. If you bought or leased a new car between January 1, 2001 and April 30, 2003, you may be able to receive a payment from these settlements. Plaintiffs' attorneys will seek reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs and payment of attorneys' fees in a requested amount not to exceed 30% of the settlement proceeds plus interest. To make a claim for money from the Canadian Export Antitrust CADA class action lawsuit settlement, you must meet the following requirements: (I) You purchased or leased a new motor vehicle (passenger car, light truck or SUV) during the period January 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003; (II) You currently reside or have your principal place of business in the United States; and (III) At the time you purchased or leased the new vehicle, you resided or had your principal place of business in one of the following "Eligible States": Arizona, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia or Wisconsin; (IV) You purchased or leased the vehicle from an auto dealer located in an Eligible State; and (V) The vehicle you purchased or leased was one of the following makes: Acura, Audi, BMW, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, Ford, GMC, Honda, Hummer, Infiniti, Jaguar, Jeep, Land Rover, Lexus, Lincoln, Mazda, Mercedes, Mercury, Mini, Nissan, Oldsmobile, Plymouth, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Toyota, Volkswagen or Volvo. U.S. BANCORP: Mass. Homeowner Foreclosure Class Action to Resume ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thom Weidlich, writing for Bloomberg News, reports a statewide class action in which Massachusetts homeowners accuse U.S. Bancorp and Ally Financial Inc. of faulty foreclosures will resume now that the state's high court ruled in a similar case last week. The litigation was on hold while the Supreme Judicial Court decided whether state law required foreclosures to be conducted by the mortgage owner. The high court ruled Jan. 7 in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez that an industry practice allowing post-foreclosure assignments violated state law. "This is a statewide class action and it's going to bring relief to all of the people who are dispossessed homeowners in many instances," Kevin Costello, Esq. -- costello@roddykleinryan.com -- of Roddy Klein & Ryan in Boston, a lawyer for the borrowers, said in a telephone interview on Jan. 10. Mr. Costello on Jan. 10 filed a motion to restart evidence gathering in the case. Claims of wrongdoing by banks and loan servicers triggered a 50-state investigation last year into whether hundreds of thousands of foreclosures were properly documented as the housing market collapsed. Unwinding of foreclosures may lead to loan workouts with homeowners or force originators to buy back loans that ended up in mortgage-backed securities. Teri Charest, a U.S. Bancorp spokeswoman, didn't have an immediate comment. The Minneapolis-based company was sued as overseer of a mortgage-backed trust. Gina Proia, a spokeswoman for Detroit-based Ally Financial, didn't have an immediate comment. Halt Request In July, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns in Boston granted the defendants' request to halt the class action until the high court ruled in Ibanez. Banks and law firms had been conducting foreclosures in the state before mortgages were transferred to them under a 1995 "title standard" by the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, a group of closing attorneys, that condoned the practice. "It was basically created by the real-estate bar without adequate foundation," said Mr. Costello. "It became an enabler for people who wanted to do business the way they wanted to do business." The homeowners in the class-action, or group, lawsuit said their foreclosures were also brought by the wrong party, often because of the process of securitization -- bundling mortgages into trusts that issue bonds. 'Clearly Establishes' The Ibanez ruling "pretty clearly establishes that our theory of the case is correct," Mr. Costello said. "The securitization machinery didn't allow for individualized treatment of these kinds of loans and so the sort of standard industry practice was foreclose first and assign later." The case has two classes of borrowers, he said: those whose foreclosures were started though not completed and those with completed foreclosures. The homeowners sued Ally unit GMAC Mortgage and U.S. Bancorp unit U.S. Bank. Other defendants include EMC Mortgage, now owned by JPMorgan Chase & Co., and two foreclosure law firms, Harmon Law Offices PC in Newton and Ablitt Scofield PC in Woburn. Lawrence Scofield of Ablitt Scofield said his firm worked on only one of the foreclosure cases involved and it didn't concern a late mortgage assignment, as in Ibanez. "These are all naked allegations and as far as I know we followed standard, normal foreclosure practice," he said. Tom Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan, declined to comment. Andrew Harmon of the Harmon firm didn't immediately return a call for comment. The case is Manson v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, 08-cv-12166, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston). VODAFONE GROUP: Law Firm Plans to Include Data Breach in Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Tindal and Darren Pauli, writing for ZDNet, report that law firm Piper Alderman, which is planning a class action lawsuit against Vodafone over the quality of its 3G mobile service, is investigating whether it can also include the telco's recent alleged data breach into the case. The firm is sending out a questionnaire to the over 9,000 Vodafone customers who have already indicated their interest in the class action lawsuit, according to Sasha Ivantsoff. It will add a question about the alleged breach. Piper Alderman hopes to know the results of that questionnaire by the end of the week, and will consider whether there is basis for including the claim into the action. If there are no grounds for it to be included, the law firm could consider it as a separate case. VERITAS SOFTWARE: SEC Fair Fund Consents Due by April 19, 2011 -------------------------------------------------------------- On November 5, 2010, the Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina, United States District Court Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, issued an Order approving the Distribution Plan in the matter of SEC v. Veritas Software Corporation, Case No. C-07-00364 (D.C.). The Order required that the funds held by the Clerk of the Court relating to the matter, totaling $30,888,696.27 as of September 22, 2010, shall become part of an SEC Fair Fund for the benefit of injured investors who purchased or acquired Veritas Software Corporation common stock, Veritas 5.25% Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2004, Veritas 1.856% Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2006, and options in Veritas between January 3, 2001 and January 16, 2003, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 7246). You can review the approved Distribution Plan and Plan of Allocation at http://www.rg2claims.com/SECVeritas/ Investors who wish to be included in the distribution of the SEC Fair Fund must complete a Consent to Participate Form and submit it by April 19, 2011, to: Veritas Fair Fund Administrator c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 Telephone: (866) 742-4955 Investors who do not wish to be included in the SEC Fair Fund distribution need not take any action. Veritas is represented in this matter by: William R. Baker, III, Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 E-mail: william.baker@lw.com WAGON WHEEL: Lawyer Wants Court to Junk Puppy Mill Suit Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Gadd, writing for The Zanesville Times Recorder, reports the state's highest court shouldn't have to hear an appeal filed in a lawsuit against a New Lexington business owner accused of running a puppy mill. L. Jackson Henniger, Esq., an attorney from Logan representing Donald Dutiel, filed a response last month against Ohio Supreme Court jurisdiction in the case. At issue is whether the suit, alleging Mr. Dutiel sold sick and diseased animals to unwitting customers through his Wagon Wheel Ranch, should proceed as a class action. Mr. Henniger said the appellants' argument that the supreme court should hear the case because it is one of public or great general interest fall flat because it is based upon "blatant mischaracterization" of lower court rulings. "The opinions of the trial court and the 5th District Court of Appeals simply do not state what appellants claim they do," Mr. Henniger wrote. Previously, Perry County Common Pleas Judge Linton D. Lewis Jr. denied class action and the 5th District Court of Appeals agreed no error existed in Judge Lewis' decision, which prompted the appeal to the supreme court in November. In the original court filing in 2009, John Bell, a Bexley attorney representing residents from Perry, Licking, Franklin and Pickaway counties, alleged Mr. Dutiel, his wife, Louella, and friend Elizabeth Singleton operated a puppy mill for the past several years, selling sick and diseased stray animals in violation of state laws. Mr. Bell said the number of possible victims might be high enough that the lawsuit could move forward as a class action. Under state laws, affidavits from at least 30 people are needed to meet the court's requirement of "numerosity," but the supreme court previously has ruled the threshold number could be as low as 25 or high as 40 and the particular situations need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Bell filed 15 affidavits and argued before Judge Lewis that more than a dozen litigation questionnaires had yet to be returned. But Judge Lewis denied the motion for class action and was later upheld by the appeals court in September. Mr. Bell filed a notice of appeal and memorandum Nov. 5 asking for Supreme Court jurisdiction in the matter. WASHINGTON COUNTY, NY: May Take Financial Hit From Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Don Lehman, writing for The Post-Star, reports that how much of a financial hit Washington County could take from an appeals court decision on January 6 that opens a lawsuit against the county to everyone who has been represented by the county Public Defender's Office remained unknown. The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court on January 6 ruled that a lawsuit that claims that Washington County and four counties named as defendants provided inadequate defense to indigent people charged with crimes can be a "class action." That opens it up to more plaintiffs, and also would increase the legal fees incurred by the plaintiffs' lawyers. That's important because plaintiff lawyers in class-action lawsuits typically seek reimbursement for their fees from the defendants. "I think that's where the financial risk is for us," Washington County Attorney Roger Wickes said. So far, none of the plaintiffs have sought financial awards from the counties for the alleged substandard legal defense they received. The goal of the lawsuit has been to get the counties to put more resources toward their public defense systems. "They're not looking to overturn convictions, just change the system," Mr. Wickes said. But John Aspland, a Glens Falls lawyer who represents Washington County, said there are concerns that the NYCLU would seek damages or reimbursement of fees on behalf of each plaintiff. "This creates a situation where the counties could have to pay the legal expenses of each person in the class-action suit," he said. The counties are weighing an appeal in the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The New York Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit, which names Washington, Onondaga, Ontario, Suffolk and Schuyler counties as defendants, in 2007. The lead plaintiff is a woman who was prosecuted in Washington County for trying to smuggle marijuana into Great Meadow Correctional Facility. She claimed her court-appointed lawyer did not represent her adequately. One of the arguments by the NYCLU has been that many indigent defendants aren't afforded counsel at their initial arraignments. While such a system is possible in a small geographical area like New York City, it is unmanageable in bigger rural counties without putting significantly more money into the system than the counties can afford, officials said. "It's a problem that has to be addressed at the state level," Mr. Aspland said. Mr. Wickes said one of the central arguments of the case has been that the counties spend more money on prosecution than on indigent defense. That is not true in Washington County, he said. The indigent defense budget has typically been higher than the district attorney's budget, Mr. Wickes said. WEGIVETOGET LLC: Settles Charity Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Edelson McGuire LLC has reached a settlement in a class action suit concerning the alleged charity fraud and deceptive practices of WeGiveToGet, LLC. The lawsuit brought against the deal-a-day website company alleged that the gift certificate provider did not fulfill the minimum monthly donation to charities that it promised to its customers. The settlement provides that WeGiveToGet, LLC make a $16,000 donation to charities and refrain from participating in similar types of business for five years. Edelson McGuire waived all attorneys' fees in representing the putative class. "We were happy to be able to help some wonderful charities," said attorney Collin Bond. "Charitable organizations have been badly hurt by the economic downturn. Hopefully, this settlement will lessen the pain and enable several charities to help those in need." Edelson McGuire -- http://www.edelson.com/-- is a commercial litigation and legal and political consulting firm with attorneys in Illinois, New York, California, and Florida. * U.S. Shareholder Class Actions Over Mergers on the Rise --------------------------------------------------------- Dionne Searcey and Ashby Jones, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, report the mergers-and-acquisitions market is heating up again, but a new raft of lawsuits claiming shareholders are being shortchanged threatens to complicate and increase the cost of the transactions. Investors are filing an ever-increasing number of lawsuits against corporations embarking on deals, statistics show. The number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts has risen from 36 in 2008 to 191 in 2009 and 216 in the first 10 months of 2010, according to Rockville, Md., research firm Securities Class Action Services. In the hours following the revelation of a deal involving a publicly traded company, plaintiffs' firms announce investigations into the matter, soliciting clients to join lawsuits seeking class-action status and challenging either the prices or the terms of the deal as unfair to shareholders. The lawsuits, sometimes called "strike" suits by critics, have long been in existence and they rarely, if ever, scuttle deals. They occasionally lead to benefits for shareholders. They have mushroomed, legal experts say, partly because the practice has proven lucrative for plaintiffs' attorneys who know that companies are eager to be rid of litigation and have been settling quickly. "It is virtually guaranteed," said Robert Brownlie, a San Diego- based attorney who has defended corporations from the suits. Mr. Brownlie, co-chair of DLA Piper LLP's securities litigation practice, estimates the suits now consume a quarter of his practice. The lawsuits sometimes hit the docket before the official paperwork on the deal has even been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. "Plaintiffs know they're going to be able to wrangle a settlement out of the company so a deal will go through," said Michael Perino, a law professor at St. John's University in New York. "The company knows a suit will be on the way so maybe they'll set aside extra money in anticipation. It all seems like an elaborate kabuki dance." On Jan. 5, less than 24 hours after Qualcomm Inc. revealed a $3.1 billion proposed acquisition of Atheros Communications Inc., 10 plaintiffs' firms announced that they claimed to be looking into the fairness of the deal on behalf of the companies' shareholders. "Qualcomm may be underpaying for Atheros, thus unlawfully harming Atheros shareholders," read one such news release. Plaintiffs' lawyers -- and even defense attorneys -- say that some of the suits can do shareholders some good. For instance, a lawsuit that held up the proposed acquisition of Amicas Inc. by Thoma Bravo LLC in 2009 helped enable a third party, Merge Healthcare Inc., to make a higher unsolicited bid for Amicas. But some critics say that the lawsuits have gotten out of hand -- which has oddly been fueled by defense attorneys' willingness to settle. Sometimes the only beneficiaries of the settlements are plaintiffs' attorneys, who collect fees of about $400,000 in an average case, according to several defense attorneys who have knowledge of numerous legal settlements. "It's a lucrative area of the law," said Greg Nespole, a partner at New York law firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, adding that new firms were catching on. "The company wants to get the deal done quickly," said Thomas Sabatino, the former general counsel at both UAL Corp. and Schering-Plough Corp. "You've worked very hard to reach an agreement and the last thing you want is to get hung up on one of these suits." Mr. Sabatino said his instinct was to fight such suits, but that some plaintiffs firms' efforts to earn a fee often stood in the way of the deal moving forward. "So you resolve them as best you can," he said. Both Merck & Co.'s acquisition of Schering-Plough in 2009 and UAL's merger with Continental Airlines Inc. in 2010 spawned shareholder litigation, which Mr. Sabatino pushed to settle quickly. Plus, settlements can often be had for cheap. In the context of a multimillion-dollar or billion-dollar deal, with its steep underwriting and legal fees, another few hundred thousand dollars to a plaintiffs' lawyer is, "a rounding error," says Jeffrey Rudman, a defense lawyer at WilmerHale in Boston. Some lawyers say that in recent months that judges on the Delaware Chancery Court, a specialized court that hears volumes of cases involving corporations, have grown more skeptical of the suits. Last month, during a hearing involving a shareholder suit concerning a merger between two radiology companies, one of the judges, Delaware Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster, criticized these suits, saying that "a lot of these sue-on-every-deal cases" are "worthless" and "all a bunch of movement for nothing," according to a transcript of the hearing. But in a March ruling in a shareholder lawsuit concerning a proposed MacAndrews & Forbes merger with Revlon Inc., Vice Chancellor Laster said that such lawsuits weren't always fruitless. "Stockholder plaintiffs can and do achieve meaningful results," he said. "But it requires effort." Vice Chancellor Laster, who didn't respond to a request for comment, has a nickname for the plaintiffs' firms who take the cases: "frequent filers." Among them he lists New York firms Wolf Popper LLP and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams.LLP. "There are firms that file more than we do," said Carl Stine, a partner at Wolf Popper. A spokewoman for Abbey Spanier didn't return calls for comment. Lawyers in turn have been filing the suits in state courts where they think they may be able to find an unsuspecting judge who won't see the harm in holding up a deal while the matter works its way through court. Edward Welch, Esq. -- edward.welch@skadden.com -- a defense lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in Wilmington, Del., said some companies are putting provisions into their corporate charters dictating that all "fiduciary litigation" must be tried in Delaware. ********* 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 * * *