/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110127.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 27, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 19 Headlines ABBOTT LABS: Consolidation of Similac Class Actions Sought ABC LEARNING: Class Action Rests on Availability of Insurance ALLY FINANCIAL: Class Action Ruling to Hurt Mortgage Investors AURORA EMPOWERMENT: Trade Union Mulls Class Action CARE INVESTMENT: 2007 Briarwood Class Action Resolved CLARCOR INC: Continues to Defend "Filter" Suits in U.S. and Canada JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Class Action Over Interest Rate Hikes LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge Delays Class Action Ruling in ADDA Suit MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Sued Over Proposed Royal DSM Buyout MERCK FROST: Faces Class Action Over Hair Loss Drug MICROSOFT CORP: Sued in Italy Over Windows Refund Procedure MYSPACE INC: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Violating Customers' Privacy NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: To Fight Class Action Over CDO Exposure POWER BALANCE: Accused in Calif. Suit of False Advertising SMURFIT-STONE: Law Firms Investigating Proposed RockTenn Buyout TASEKO MINES: Unusual Trading Claims No Basis, CEO Says WOOD ROT: Class Action Over Defective Windows Proceeds in Ill. * South Florida Remains National Center of Overtime Complaints ********* ABBOTT LABS: Consolidation of Similac Class Actions Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- A panel of federal judges will hold a hearing this week to determine whether to consolidate a growing number of Similac class action lawsuits before one judge for coordinated pretrial litigation. The lawsuits were all filed as a result of a Similac recall issued last year by Abbott Laboratories after some cans of the powered baby formula were found to be infested with beetles and their larvae. The insects are believed to have caused diarrhea and gastrointestinal distress in some infants who were fed the contaminated formula. In late October, plaintiff Chalonda Jasper filed a motion to have every Similac lawsuit currently pending in federal court consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation. Abbott Laboratories has opposed consolidation, arguing that motions to dismiss the Similac recall class action suits have been filed and they believe they are likely to succeed. In addition. they have indicated that common factual issues between the complaints are few and a "patchwork of disparate state-law standards" govern the claims. On Jan. 20, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will hear oral arguments on the motion. Such centralization is common in complex product liability claims involving a large number of similar lawsuits over injuries associated with a particular product. The process is designed to avoid duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings by different judges and to promote the efficient litigation of the cases. Currently, there are at least seven Similac lawsuits filed in five different districts across the country, including the Central and Eastern Districts of California, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Eastern District of New York. Three of the cases are located in Illinois, including Jasper's. All of the claims are class action lawsuits that accuse Abbott of negligence in failing to prevent the beetle contamination. They also charge the company with illegal enrichment and failing to warn consumers about the risk of beetle contamination. The lawsuits claim that Abbott knew about the contamination for at least a week before announcing the Similac recall. Abbott recalled the Similac infant formula on September 22 after discovering beetle contamination, which occurred at the company's Sturgis, Michigan, production facility. While Abbott claims that testing has shown that 99.8% of the recalled products are free of bugs, concerned parents swamped Abbott's Web site, social media, news and parenting forums across the Internet with concerns and fears that their children may have consumed or gotten ill due to eating Similac with insects. The recall affected Similac worldwide, with Saudi Arabia announcing a Similac ban, despite Abbott limiting the recall to the U.S., Puerto Rico, Guam and countries in the Caribbean. ABC LEARNING: Class Action Rests on Availability of Insurance ------------------------------------------------------------- Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports chances of a class-action lawsuit proceeding against ABC Learning Centres will rest on whether the toppled childcare operator has more than $10 million in insurance. Tentative steps have been taken in the Federal Court almost two years after Brisbane-based ABC collapsed amid long-running concerns about its accounts. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers is seeking leave from the court to get information from ABC's liquidators Ferrier Hodgson about whether the childcare operator had relevant insurance in place, so losses can be recovered. Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said the move came after liquidators had not responded to requests for information about the policy and sometimes policies required the existence of the insurance to be kept confidential. The case is funded by litigation backers IMF Australia. More than 100 shareholders whose losses exceeded $100 million have signed up. Mr. Slade said the action would proceed if any insurance policy was worth more than $10 million, otherwise the amount recovered would be too small. IMF first flagged a lawsuit in 2008, several months before ABC's collapse. The suit is alleging "misleading or deceptive conduct and a failure to disclose information that was material to the sharemarket". It stretches from reported earnings given in August 2006, when ABC unveiled an 86% rise in profits to $81.1 million, to guidance given in July 2008. Maurice Blackburn said the share price of ABC, a former market darling, dipped almost 40% during that roughly two-year period. Mr. Slade said issues under the spotlight included fees from developers and income from an outside staffing agency. Ferrier Hodgson confirmed proceedings were under way, but were unable to comment about the existence of an insurance policy. ALLY FINANCIAL: Class Action Ruling to Hurt Mortgage Investors -------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Prior, writing for HousingWire, reports a recent ruling from a federal judge denying class action status to a group of investors suing Ally Financial and the Royal Bank of Scotland will hurt them and other investors hoping to get compensation for soured mortgage-backed securities, Moody's Investors Service said. U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ruled last week that the investors in the Ally and RBS case rose "individualized issues" and even said some plaintiffs knew that the underwriting standards for the underlying loans were being lowered, while other plaintiffs were in the dark. Collectively, the claims are worth $37.6 billion according to court documents. Moody's analysts said the ruling "will negatively affect plaintiffs in the large number of similar multibillion-dollar securities lawsuits pending in federal court against large investment banks and chill future lawsuits based on similar legal theories." In this case, the varying amount of knowledge of the loans held by the investors and the varying dates that they made their purchase kept them from the class-action status. Moody's said this might mean plaintiffs in the future will have to pursue litigation on an individual basis, resulting fewer such cases for the banks. However, analysts stopped short of saying the ruling will set a meaningful precedent for class-action lawsuits against issuers for representations and warranties. The legal issues in those cases would likely be different, Moody's said. "The ruling is particular to securities laws claims that depend on the level of knowledge of the purchaser," Moody's said. "Claims for breaches of representations and warranties are based in contract law and do not hinge on the particular knowledge of the investors." AURORA EMPOWERMENT: Trade Union Mulls Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Moneyweb reports the trade union Solidarity has embarked on a process of preparing for an alternative legal action against Aurora Empowerment Systems, as the mine has still not made good on its promise to pay employees' outstanding salaries, union fees and other benefits. Solidarity initially planned to refer the matter to the Labour Court in January 2011, but has decided on the basis of legal advice to submit an application for the liquidation of Aurora to the High Court instead. Solidarity calls on employees of Aurora's mines who would like to participate in a class action against the company to contact the trade union. "We want to initiate the legal action in early February. Therefore, employees have only until January 31 to provide us with the necessary information," explained Gideon du Plessis, Deputy General Secretary of Solidarity. Hanno Bucksteg, specialist litigant of Solidarity's Labour Court Division, emphasized that employees must supply the trade union with the necessary information urgently, as new pleas have to be drawn up. Mr. Bucksteg pointed out that only employees who provide complete information before the cut-off date will be represented in the application. The following information, together with supporting documents, must be provided to Solidarity: * Full names and surname * Copy of identity document * Street address and postal address * Contact details (including fax, home telephone and cellphone number as well as e-mail address) * Contact details of next of kin * Title of position held at Aurora * Employee number * Date of appointment and termination of service * Pay slips/bank statements from January 2010 to December 2010 * Information regarding overtime (if applicable) * Contract of service * List of monies owed Employees who would like to participate in the class action can: * go to http://www.solidaritylegalservices.co.za/and download the required form; or * contact Michelle Saayman or Hanno Bucksteg at 012 644 4433; or * send an e-mail to aurora@solidariteit.co.za According to Du Plessis, the history of Aurora is one of hardship for its employees. The provisional liquidation of the former Pamodzi mines already started in April 2009. "The President Steyn mine in the Free State was sold, while the liquidators appointed Aurora Empowerment Systems to manage the Orkney and East Rand mines until ownership of these mines can be transferred to Aurora. Aurora has not managed to raise the necessary finance for the transaction. Employees at these mines have received irregular pay since February last year," he added. CARE INVESTMENT: 2007 Briarwood Class Action Resolved ----------------------------------------------------- Care Investment Trust Inc. on Jan. 24 disclosed that the class action lawsuit filed against it in 2007 in connection with the Company's IPO (Briarwood v. Care) has been fully and finally resolved. Salvatore (Torey) V. Riso, President and Chief Executive Officer, said, "We are pleased this lawsuit has been resolved in full so that the Company can continue to focus on its future growth." Care Investment Trust Inc. (OTCQX: CVTR) is a real estate investment and finance company investing in healthcare-related real estate. CLARCOR INC: Continues to Defend "Filter" Suits in U.S. and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ CLARCOR Inc. continues to defend itself from class actions filed by purchasers of aftermarket filters, according to the Company's Jan. 21, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 27, 2010. On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters, Inc., engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket filters. This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the Defendant Group. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. In addition, the Attorney General of the State of Florida and the County of Suffolk, New York have filed complaints against the Defendant Group based on these same allegations, and the Attorney General of the State of Washington requested various documents, information and cooperation, which the Company has agreed to provide. In late 2010, William Burch, a former employee of two other defendants in the Defendant Group, brought an action under the United States False Claims Act and similar state statutes on behalf of the governments of the United States and approximately twenty individual states against the Defendant Group, based on these same allegations. Finally, the Company understands that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice was investigating the allegations raised in these suits and issued subpoenas in connection with that investigation. The Company was not contacted by the DOJ in connection with the DOJ investigation and was not the subject of any subpoena. Public reports indicate that the DOJ officially closed its investigation in January 2010 and took no action against any filter manufacturer. All of the U.S cases, including the actions brought by and/or on behalf of governmental entities, have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The Company believes all of these lawsuits and the claims made therein to be without merit and is vigorously defending them. CLARCOR Inc. -- http://www.clarcor.com/-- conducts business in three segments: Engine/Mobile Filtration, Industrial/ Environmental Filtration and Packaging. JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Class Action Over Interest Rate Hikes ---------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Jan. 24 that JPMorgan Chase & Co. did not did not have to provide written notice before increasing interest rates for account holders who defaulted on their credit card payment. The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2004, five years before the passage of the CARD Act. The CARD Act changed the notification requirements for interest rate hikes, requiring that cardholders now receive 45 days notice on any increase, including default. This decision will likely have little impact on future cases but it will impact pending cases. In the suit Chase Bank USA v. McCoy, James McCoy accused Chase of violating federal law by retroactively increasing his interest rates after his account was closed following a late payment. Chase argued that its cardmember agreement documented the conditions that Mr. McCoy had to adhere to in order to retain the lower interest rate, in addition to the maximum interest rate that could be levied if he violated those terms. The Supreme Court ruled that under the old federal regulations, the Chase cardmember agreement disclosed the terms of interest rates and the maximum rates that would apply if the terms were violated. Therefore, Chase did not have to provide written notice before raising credit card interest rates to account holders who defaulted on a payment. Bill Hardekopf is the CEO of LowCards.com, a site helping consumers understand the complex world of credit cards. LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge Delays Class Action Ruling in ADDA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sherri M. Okamoto, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright II of the Central District of California on Jan. 21 backtracked from his tentative decision to grant class action status to a suit alleging Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his senior managers of discriminating against prosecutors who voted in favor of unionizing. Judge Wright began the hearing by telling the attorneys representing the defendants -- Brian Hershman of Jones Day, and Calvin House of Gutierrez Preciado & House -- that unless they had "something earth-shattering" to say, his tentative decision to certify the class would stand. But he concluded by saying he wanted to take another look at the matter, giving no indication of when he would rule. The Association of Deputy District Attorneys -- which bills itself as the largest prosecutors union in the country -- had moved in April 2010 to certify a class of plaintiffs who allegedly suffered various constitutional violations when Assistant Head Deputy Peter Burke disclosed to management a list of prosecutors who had signed union cards demonstrating their desire to become unionized employees during the period from December 2007 to February 2008. At the hearing on Jan. 21, Mr. Hershman contended this putative class description was "not an accurate characterization" because the names of the persons Mr. Burke allegedly "outed" were those who had voted in favor of certifying the ADDA as its bargaining unit after the vote in favor of unionizing had already taken place. Disclosure of who had voted in the uncontested election for who should serve as the bargaining representative for the prosecutors' union is "a very different outing than if you wanted to unionize," Mr. Hershman said. 'Outed Themselves' The attorney also argued that individual issues predominated over common issues for the putative class members since some would-be plaintiffs may not have acted in private manner in voting or have been concerned with the Cooley administration learning how he or she had voted. Other individuals, such as the ADDA board members who were "public, vocal, active" and "outed themselves" before the "Burke list" disclosure. Mr. Hershman added, insisting for those individuals who "do[ ] not care or keep this information private," there could be no liability. He further claimed that "this is not a vast group clamoring for relief," and there was not "300 people clamoring for this court to address what is alleged," but only a "very discrete group" of individuals -- namely ADDA President Hyatt Seligman, immediate past President Steven Ipsen, Vice President Marc Debbaudt, and former President James Bozajian -- who took issue with assignment transfers they claim were punitive and retaliatory. Counsel for the ADDA Matthew Monforton, a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney, responded that Mr. Hershman's arguments were addressing issues involving the merits underlying the claim, and that the hearing on certification was not the appropriate time to argue the merits. 'No Long Line' Mr. Monforton emphasized that the list of names given to Mr. Cooley's administration let them know "exactly the 540 people who supported the ADDA," and there was "no long line of deputy district attorneys" willingly identifying themselves as pro-union at any time. "At best, a handful" of individuals were publicly endorsing unionization Mr. Monforton said, "but even as to them, they have a right of privacy to their union cards." The attorney analogized the situation to the hypothetical disclosure of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's voting record, contending that a revelation she voted Republican would "not be a shock" and would still violate her privacy. Judge Wright said that he was "troubled" by the arguments raised and "struggling with this now." When dealing with "publishing someone's association within a group," the jurist remarked that "you can't say they are all the same," and factors such as the "scope" "timing," "context" and "political climate" are relevant. "Tentative means tentative," Judge Wright observed, and told counsel "let me take another look at this" before leaving the bench. After the hearing, Mr. Monforton predicted the judge's final ruling was "not going to be any different" and the "540 deputy district attorneys who defend the rights of the citizens of Los Angeles will have their right to privacy defended by the court." Mr. Hershman said he "appreciated the judge taking a fresh look" at the issue and "we continue to believe class certification is not appropriate." The original complaint in the lawsuit was filed in October 2008 by the ADDA and an unnamed member against Cooley, Chief Deputy District Attorney John Spillane, Bureau Director John Zajec, and Assistant District Attorneys Curtis Hazell and Jacquelyn Lacey, asserting seven causes of action based on the defendants' alleged attempts to quash the fledging union. In April 2010, the complaint was amended to add class-based claims arising from the "unlawful disclosure" to Mr. Cooley and management officials of a list identifying the class members and from Mr. Cooley's subsequent use of that list to "intimidate, harass and slander union supporters." The amended complaint also added Burke and other members of Mr. Cooley's management team as defendants. The case is One Unnamed Deputy District Attorney v. County of Los Angeles, 09-7931. MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Sued Over Proposed Royal DSM Buyout ------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven on January 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the Maryland Circuit Court, Howard County, on behalf of all shareholders of Martek Biosciences Corp. The claims asserted in the complaint arise from the proposed buyout of Martek by Koninklijke DSM N.V. On December 20, 2010, Martek entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Royal DSM and Greenback Acquisition Corporation, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Royal DSM. Pursuant and subject to the terms of the merger agreement, Royal DSM has commenced a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Martek's common stock for a purchase price of $31.50 per share in cash. The tender offer is scheduled to expire on February 18, 2011, unless the offer is extended. The complaint alleges that Martek's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction by, among other things, carrying out a defective sale process that resulted in an unfair price to stockholders and agreeing to certain onerous and preclusive deal protection provisions. MERCK FROST: Faces Class Action Over Hair Loss Drug --------------------------------------------------- A class action was filed on Jan. 24 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Vancouver resident, Michael Miller, against Merck Frosst Canada and its affiliated companies. The lawsuit has been brought on behalf of Canadian men who used Propecia or Proscar and suffered continuing sexual dysfunction. Propecia and Proscar are prescribed as a cosmetic treatment for male pattern hair loss also known as androgenic alopecia. The product monograph discloses that some men may experience sexual dysfunction but states that the symptoms disappear after cessation of the drug. Mr. Miller, who is in his early 20s, was concerned when his hair started to thin in some areas. He was prescribed Proscar which he hoped would stop his hair from thinning. After about a month of use he noticed a drastic change in his behavior, "I lost my interest in sex and I felt anxious in social situations for no particular reason," he says. While on the drug, his symptoms of sexual dysfunction increased as the months passed. When he could no longer bear the side effects, he stopped using Proscar but these symptoms didn't go away: "My sexual functioning has not recovered, I have seen specialists and have tried treatments but nothing has worked," says Mr. Miller. According to Mr. Miller's lawyer, David Klein, "The product labels have been changed in several European countries to include a warning of persistent erectile dysfunction after discontinuation of the drug but this change has not been made on the Canadian product labels." It is alleged that the drug manufacturers failed to adequately warn Canadians of the true risks. Mr. Klein also says, "So far, more than 80 Canadian men have expressed an interest in participating in the class action. We believe there are many other men who will come forward now that the case has been filed in court." Mr. Miller is represented by Klein Lyons, one of Canada's most experienced class action law firms. MICROSOFT CORP: Sued in Italy Over Windows Refund Procedure ----------------------------------------------------------- Josh Lowensohn, writing for CNET, reports a class action lawsuit against Microsoft has been filed in Italy by a group claiming that it's too difficult to procure a refund for the copies of Windows that come bundled in new PCs. The case, which was filed in Milan by the Associazione per i Diritti degli Utenti e Consumatori, and picked up by The Register earlier on Jan. 24, points to Microsoft's end user license agreement -- as outlined in various copies of Windows -- noting that once users turn their computer on and begin to use it, they are no longer able to return the software for a refund. Furthermore, the group says consumers who buy computers with OEM copies of Windows installed have more difficulties in getting a refund than those who purchased a retail copy of the OS. The lawsuit notes that users who buy and install the OS itself, but that don't agree to the EULA, are entitled to a return from the place where they bought it. OEM buyers, however, are at the whim of their system seller or installer for a refund, which has historically proven to be a difficult process, it says. To avail these issues, the class action suit seeks a hearing and also to nullify the section of the EULA that requires users go to OEMs instead of Microsoft for refunds. When asked for comment, a Microsoft representative said it should be pointed out the company's licensing agreements with OEMs are non-exclusive, and that users are "free to purchase PCs with a non-Microsoft operating system, or without any operating system," but that having Windows preinstalled "provides the best user experience." Even so, the representative reiterated that any returns or refunds still have to be handled through the OEM, and not Microsoft itself. "Customers who purchase a PC from an OEM with Windows preinstalled and then wish to return the PC and/or the preinstalled software should consult the OEM's return/refund policies," the spokesperson said. Twelve years ago, a group of Linux users in the United States sought refunds for OEM copies of Windows as part of a campaign called "Windows Refund Day." Instead of going to OEMs though, as Microsoft outlines in its EULA, those users went directly to the company's offices in Silicon Valley. Even then though, Microsoft pointed users back to the PC makers, saying "when a consumer purchases a new PC, the license for Windows resides with that specific PC maker, and each PC maker has its own process for working with customers on licensing issues." MYSPACE INC: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Violating Customers' Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in Manhattan federal court claims MySpace violates its customers' privacy by disclosing their private information to federal and state law enforcement agencies. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: To Fight Class Action Over CDO Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------- The New Lawyer reports National Australia Bank will vigorously defend itself in a class action that claims the bank failed to disclose the full extent of losses during the global financial crisis early enough, its lawyer says. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers is heading the action by 250 institutional and retail investors seeking about $450 million in losses. Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson told a directions hearing at the Victorian Supreme Court on Jan. 21 that the bank should have revealed information to shareholders earlier. Maurice Blackburn was contacted by shareholders following a $6 per share plunge in the bank's share price in July 2008, the firm said. According to the firm, NAB had bought $1.2 billion in Collaterized Debt Obligations in 2006 which comprised asset-backed securities, in particular US residential mortgage backed securities. It alleges that these CDOs had a heavy exposure to the subprime residential mortgage market which became "toxic debt" in 2007 and early 2008. A lawyer acting for NAB, Geoff Healy, said outside the court on Jan. 21 that it was still waiting to see a statement of claim from Maurice Blackburn. "We will be vigorously defending the case," he said to reporters. Justice Tony Pagone adjourned the matter on Jan. 21 for a further preliminary hearing on March 28. In late July 2008 NAB suffered the biggest drop in its share price since 1987, when the bank revealed it had lost up to $1 billion in the US mortgage crisis. "We will allege that between January 1, 2008 and July 25, 2008 NAB did not properly disclose to shareholders and potential shareholders all material information relating to its CDO exposure. Shareholders who bought shares before NAB revealed its true position suffered losses as a result." said Mr. Watson. "In early May 2008, the NAB told the market that it had provisioned $181 million, in respect of its $1.2 billion CDO exposure. The bank announced at the same time that this was a very conservative provision. Investors took comfort from this apparently conservative and appropriate approach. the law firm said. "However only two months later, in July 2008, NAB increased its total provision to $1.1 billion, or 90 per cent of the value of the CDOs. In the following days NAB's share price plunged by nearly $6 and analysts complained strongly about the misleading nature of NAB's earlier announcement." POWER BALANCE: Accused in Calif. Suit of False Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Shaquille O'Neal and Lamar Odom endorse a bogus Power Balance "performance technology" bracelet that claims to "optimize the body's natural energy flow," and improve "strength, balance and flexibility." It's pure snake oil, says the class, which also sued Power Balance LLC and the men who run it, Josh and Tony Rodarmel and Keith Kato. Lead plaintiff Brian Casserly says he paid $79.95 for the bracelet or pendant, that contains a hologram that's supposed to give him better "strength, balance and flexibility." "In fact, the Power Balance holograms are nothing short of snake oil," he says in his federal complaint. "Despite defendants' representations that the hologram with enhance consumers' 'strength, balance and flexibility,' it is biologically incapable of doing so. Plaintiff and other purchasers paid as much as $79.95 for Power Balance products with the expectation that they would enjoy greater 'strength, balance and flexibility,' but they did not. "Indeed, Power Balance Australia, which sells products containing the same holograms, recently admitted that '[i]n our advertising we stated that Power Balance wristbands improved your strength, balance and flexibility. We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports our claims and therefore we engaged in misleading conduct in breach of s52 of the [Australia] Trade Practice Act 1974.'" Mr. Casserly seeks class damages for people who bought the stuff in the United States. He sued Messrs. O'Neal and Odom as "paid celebrity endorser[s]" of the bracelet. He seeks statutory and punitive damages for consumer fraud, false advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. A copy of the Complaint in Casserly v. Power Balance, LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00670 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/24/Shaq.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Robyn C. Crowther, Esq. CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC 1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 629-9040 SMURFIT-STONE: Law Firms Investigating Proposed RockTenn Buyout --------------------------------------------------------------- The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, founded by a former state prosecutor and enforcement attorney for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the securities litigation law firm of Powers Taylor LLP are investigating potential legal claims against the Board of Directors of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation related to the proposed buyout of Smurfit-Stone by RockTenn Company. The investigation relates to the fairness of the proposed transaction to Smurfit-Stone shareholders, possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of Smurfit-Stone for approving this transaction, and whether Smurfit-Stone's Board of Directors acted in the shareholders' best interests. The definitive merger agreement involves a 50% cash and 50% stock transaction valued at approximately $3.5 billion, which is expected to close in the second quarter of 2011. Under the proposed transaction, Smurfit-Stone shareholders will receive a cash payment of $17.50 and a fixed-ratio of 0.30605 shares of RockTenn stock for each share of Smurfit-Stone/SSCC common stock they hold. Following the acquisition, Smurfit-Stone will become a wholly owned subsidiary of RockTenn. In the 2 weeks prior to the announcement, Smurfit-Stone shares closed as high as $28 per share. "Based on the lack of an appreciable premium to shareholders, and other factors, we have concern whether the proposed acquisition is fair to Smurfit-Stone shareholders, and we want to ensure that the shareholders are receiving the maximum value for their stock," said shareholder rights attorney Willie Briscoe. If you currently own shares of Smurfit-Stone/SSCC and would like additional information regarding this investigation, or if you have information regarding the allegations involved in this transaction, please contact: Patrick Powers, Esq. Powers Taylor LLP Toll Free: 877-728-9607 E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com - or - Willie Briscoe, Esq. The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC Toll Free: 877-397-5991 E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com There is no cost or fee to you. The Briscoe Law Firm is a full service business litigation and shareholder rights advocacy firm with more than 20 years of experience in complex litigation matters. Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression, shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions. TASEKO MINES: Unusual Trading Claims No Basis, CEO Says ------------------------------------------------------- Russell Hallbauer, president and CEO of Taseko Mines Limited, commented on Jan. 24 on recent articles that have appeared in some newspapers relating to efforts by a Canadian lawyer to solicit support for a possible class action suit based on unusual trading in the Company's shares on October 14, 2010. Taseko is not aware of the cause for the unusual trading activity that day, nor is it aware of any basis for a claim against Taseko or any of its officers or directors relating to that trading activity. None of Taseko's officers or directors was in possession of any material undisclosed information or traded any shares on October 14, 2010. Taseko has no reason to believe any class action suit, if pursued, will adversely affect the Company. WOOD ROT: Class Action Over Defective Windows Proceeds in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- Last week it was announced that the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a lawsuit alleging a major window manufacturer had produced defective aluminum clad windows that allowed water to seep inside causing wood rot. The case is now proceeding as a class action lawsuit in federal court in Chicago. There are a variety of types of fungi that cause wood rot and decay. Many property owners have witnessed the destructive nature of these fungi. According to an Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet, "Current estimates show that replacement materials, needed to repair damage caused by rot alone, account for nearly 10 percent of U.S. annual wood production." Many times damage from wood rot fungi are mistakenly blamed on termites and other insects. The fungi are living organisms that send their hyphae through the wood, obtaining their food from the material as they grow. The end result is crumbly and stained wood with expensive repairs needed to prevent structural damage. Since wood is a major component of most homes and even many commercial buildings, the destruction caused by wood rot fungi is enormous. One of the leading providers of wood rot investigating and consulting services in Illinois and across the greater Chicago area is EC2, Inc. "The key to preventing wood rot is to control moisture," reported Ed Chambers, President of EC2. "Wood decay fungi often appear when there is high moisture content, typically above 20%. A common place to find problems from this type of fungi is in crawl spaces on wood beams. Incorrectly installed or missing vapor barriers are often the culprit. Other solutions include allowing adequate cross ventilation and proper drainage of the building site. It takes an experienced professional to properly indentify wood rot and to provide solutions to eliminate its presence and prevent future damage." To learn more about wood rot, indoor air quality or building sciences please visit http://www.4ec2inc.come-mail info@4ec2inc.com or call (815) 703-9000. The environmental and building science consultants from EC2 Inc. provide wood rot investigations and consulting services to residents across Illinois and the Midwest. * South Florida Remains National Center of Overtime Complaints -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that South Florida remains the national center of overtime complaints, with seven federal class actions filed there on Jan. 21, in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. ********* 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 * * *