/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110215.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 15, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 32
Headlines
AEGEAN MARINE: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action in N.Y.
AGL RESOURCES: Still Defends Overcharging Suit in Georgia
AGL RESOURCES: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over Nicor Merger
ALLY FINANCIAL: Kentucky Owners Drop Suit vs. Citi, Ally
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Incurs $2.3 Million Legal Costs in Class Suit
AMCOR: Damages Claim in Price-Fixing Class Action Reduced
ANZ BANK: Court Wants to Speed Up Fee Gouging Class Action
AUTOMATIC DATA: Continues to Defend Class Suit on Client Calls
AVIAT NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Del.
BIG LOTS: Sued Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Court Reverses Dismissal of IPO Class Action
BOEING CO: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Suits on Wichita Sale
BOEING CO: 7th Circuit Decertifies Class in ERISA-Related Lawsuit
BOEING CO: Seeks Reconsideration of Denial of Motion to Dismiss
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Stock Acquisition
CHINA GREEN: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Nevada
CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
COMPUTER SCIENCE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Morefield Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Action
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Defends Merger-Related Lawsuits in California
CPI INTERNATIONAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Lawsuit
DEL MONTE: Bull & Lifshitz Files Shareholder Class Action
DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Appeals in NetSilicon IPO Suit Remain Pending
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Defends Alberta Class Action
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Defends Manitoba Class Action
DYNAVOX INC: Amended Complaint Filing Deadline Is Feb. 18
FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Using Children's Profiles Without Consent
FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From Braun IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
FOREX CAPITAL: Morgan Business Trial Group Files Class Action
INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Missouri Suit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court to Hear Motion to Preclude on Feb. 23
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Motion to Dismiss Amended Nevada Suit Pending
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Pending
JOHN THOMAS FINANCIAL: Sued for Violation of New York Labor Law
LIFE PARTNERS: Briscoe Law Firm Files Investor Class Action
LYCOMING ENGINES: Class Certification of Engine Suit Denied
MEDCATH CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Vs. Bakersfield Hospital
MONSANTO CO: Sued for Violating Migrant Workers' Rights
MUELLER WATER: Settlement Fairness Hearing This Thursday
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Class Action From Ticketholders
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Red Light Camera Suit Assigned to Judge Julien
NCL CORP: Continues to Defend Wage-Related Class Suit in Florida
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Class Cert. Denial
ORION ENERGY: Fairness Hearing on IPO Suit Set for April 14
POLO RALPH: Reverses $3.6 Million Settlement Reserves Into Income
PRIDE INT'L: Shareholders File Class Action to Halt Ensco Merger
RENTECH INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Stayed in Calif.
SIGMA-ALDRICH: Third Trial in Isotec Explosion Suit Set for March
SMURFIT-STONE: Brower Piven Joins in RockTenn Buyout Class Suit
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Final Hearing on "DivX" Settlement Set April 1
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Awaits Court Approval of Suits Settlement
SPECIALTY'S CAFE: Sued for Non-Payment of Minimum Wage & Overtime
STATE STREET: Arkansas Public Pension Fund Files Class Action
STERIS CORP: Settles With SYSTEM 1 Plaintiffs
SUMMER INFANT: Recalls 1.7 Million Video Baby Monitors
SUMMER INFANT: Recalls 58,000 Rechargeable Batteries
TERMINIX INT'L: Sued in Calif. for Falsifying Inspection Reports
TOYOTA MOTOR: 2013 Trial Set for Acceleration Class Action
UNITED STATES: Feb. 16 Meeting Set for Indian Trust Settlement
VANGUARD HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Maderazo" Suit in Texas
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Still Defends Merix-Related Suit in Oregon
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Obtains Court Approval of Merix Suit Settlement
WESCO FIN'L: Board Sued Over Berkshire Takeover
WHITNEY HOLDING: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Hancock Merger
WVS FINANCIAL CORP: Subsidiary Reaches Deal to Settle Lawsuit
* Dallas Lawyer Mulls Overbooking Class Action v. Hotel Chains
*********
AEGEAN MARINE: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on February 10 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. common stock who purchased
shares between January 4, 2010 and February 3, 2011 (the "Class
Period"). Specifically, the lawsuit alleges Aegean Marine knew
but failed to disclose declining demand for its products and
services, particularly in the Singapore and Rotterdam ports.
Further, the complaint alleges the Company's acquisition of
Verbeke Bunkering N.V. was not performing according to internal
expectations, and as a result of these and other problems, the
lawsuit alleges the Company lacked a reasonable basis for its
positive Class Period statements.
If you purchased shares of Aegean Marine common stock during the
Class Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to be
appointed a "lead plaintiff." A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Any such request must satisfy certain
criteria and be made no later than April 11, 2011. Any member of
the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. If you are an Aegean Marine
investor and would like to discuss a potential lead plaintiff
appointment, or your rights and interests with respect to the
lawsuit, you may contact:
Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
Toll-Free Telephone: (888) 508-6832
E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com/-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.
AGL RESOURCES: Still Defends Overcharging Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
AGL Resources, Inc.'s subsidiary, Georgia Natural Gas, is still
defending a class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton
County in the state of Georgia, according to the Company's Feb. 9,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.
In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia against GNG
alleging that it charged its customers of variable rate plans
prices for natural gas that were in excess of the published price,
failed to give proper notice regarding the availability of
potentially lower price plans and that it changed its methodology
for computing variable rates. GNG asserts that no violation of
law or Georgia Commission rules has occurred. This lawsuit was
dismissed in September 2008. The plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of the lawsuit and, in May 2009, the Georgia Court of
Appeals reversed the lower court's order. In June 2009, GNG filed
a petition for reconsideration with the Georgia Supreme Court. In
October 2009 the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to review the Court
of Appeals' decision. Accordingly, the Georgia Supreme Court held
oral arguments in January 2010. In March 2010 the Georgia Supreme
Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision. The case has been
remanded back to the Superior Court of Fulton County for further
proceedings. GNG asserts that no violation of law or Georgia
Commission rules has occurred. This case has not had, and is not
expected to have, a material impact on the Company's results of
operation or financial condition.
AGL RESOURCES: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over Nicor Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
AGL Resources, Inc., continues to defend itself in class action
lawsuits filed in relation to its proposed merger with Nicor,
Inc., according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010.
Several class action lawsuits have been brought by purported Nicor
shareholders challenging Nicor's proposed merger with the Company.
The complaints allege that the Company aided and abetted alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by Nicor's Board of Directors. The
shareholder actions seek, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief, including orders enjoining the defendants from
completing the proposed merger and, in certain circumstances,
damages. No assurances can be given as to the outcome of these
lawsuits, including the costs associated with defending these
lawsuits or any other liabilities or costs the parties may incur
in connection with the litigation or settlement of these lawsuits.
Furthermore, one of the conditions to closing the merger is that
there are no injunctions issued by any court preventing the
completion of the transactions. No assurance can be given that
these lawsuits will not result in such an injunction being issued
which could prevent or delay the closing of the Merger Agreement.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Kentucky Owners Drop Suit vs. Citi, Ally
--------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Amon at Bloomberg News reports that Kentucky homeowners
dropped a possible class-action suit in which Citigroup Inc. and
Ally Financial Inc. units were accused of conspiring with Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems Inc. to falsely foreclose on
loans.
Bloomberg relates that Heather Boone McKeever, the Lexington,
Kentucky, lawyer who sued on behalf of the homeowners, said by
e-mail that she dropped the case Feb. 3 because as a solo
practitioner she wouldn't be able to clear the "necessary hurdles"
for maintaining a federal class action and she couldn't interest a
larger law firm. She said she continues to advise the plaintiffs
in their individual state-court cases.
The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering case on behalf of all
Kentucky homeowners facing foreclosure, also named as a defendant
Reston, Virginia-based MERS, the company that handles mortgage
transfers among member banks.
The Kentucky homeowners, Bloomberg discloses, filed their
complaint Sept. 28 in Louisville. They claimed that through MERS
the banks are foreclosing on homes even when they don't hold
titles to the properties. The suit was dismissed without
prejudice.
The case is Foster v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
Inc., 10-cv-611, (W.D. Ky.).
Based in New York, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) -- is a global
diversified financial services holding company whose businesses
provide a broad range of financial services to consumer and
corporate customers.
Ally Financial Inc., formerly GMAC Inc., -- http://www.ally.com/
-- is one of the world's largest automotive financial services
companies. The company offers a full suite of automotive
financing products and services in key markets around the world.
Ally's other business units include mortgage operations and
commercial finance, and the company's subsidiary, Ally Bank,
offers online retail banking products. Ally operates as a bank
holding company.
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Incurs $2.3 Million Legal Costs in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassadors Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:EPAX), in a Feb. 9, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to
its results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31,
2010, disclosed that the Company is party to both a shareholder
class action suit and an investigation by the SEC. During 2010
and 2009, the Company has incurred outside legal costs associated
with these matters totaling $2.3 million and $1.1 million,
respectively. In 2010, the Company received reimbursement for
insurance coverage on these matters or was notified of the
carrier's intent to reimburse for amounts totaling $2.1 million.
As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, on July 14,
2009, a securities class action was filed against the Company and
certain of its executive officers on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 8, 2007, and October 23, 2007, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
On March 11, 2010, the Defendants moved to dismiss the class
action. On June 2, 2010, the Court issued an order denying the
Defendants' motion. The current amended complaint, alleges that
the Defendants violated federal securities laws by making untrue
statements of material fact and omitting to state material facts,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Ambassadors Group
Common Stock. The Company said it has reviewed the amended
complaint and deny the allegations contained in it. The class
action is currently in discovery. The Company noted that it has
tendered its defense and indemnity under applicable insurance
coverage and defense counsel in Seattle, Washington has been
retained to represent it. The Company cannot estimate the
possible loss with respect to the class action, if any, at this
time. Actual cost to resolve the class action will depend on many
factors like the outcome of mediation, pre-trial motions, trial
and any appeals. The Company intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit and any alleged claims for damages.
AMCOR: Damages Claim in Price-Fixing Class Action Reduced
---------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a customer class action against Amcor and Visy Industries has
reduced its damages claim by "hundreds of millions of dollars"
after a fresh assessment of the historical accounts of the two box
companies.
The customers, mostly fruit and vegetable producers, initially
claimed they had lost AU$1.05 billion, including interest, from an
alleged cartel to fix the prices of cardboard boxes between 2000
and 2005.
That estimate was produced in March by an economist retained by
plaintiff law firm Maurice Blackburn, Daniel Rubinfeld, of the
University of California, Berkeley.
Professor Rubinfeld, who analyzed financial data produced by Amcor
and Visy under a Federal Court order, estimated that Amcor
overcharged members of the class action by AU$466 million and Visy
by AU$234 million.
He assessed interest at AU$350 million.
In November, a report by Amcor's economic expert, Professor Jerry
Hausman, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said
Professor Rubinfeld's calculations were based on "material
accounting misconceptions".
This prompted Maurice Blackburn to seek renewed access to the
internal accounts of Amcor and Visy, which Justice Peter Jacobson
granted in December.
Justice Jacobson's orders included that Amcor disclose how its
accounting for paper costs changed when it decided in 2003 that
rebates would apply to transactions among its business units.
Amcor's solicitor, Richard Harris, told a pre-trial hearing
yesterday that an unpublished second report filed by Professor
Rubinfeld last month had revised the estimate downwards by
"hundreds of millions of dollars".
"It's a very substantial move in the right direction," said
Mr. Harris, a partner of Allens Arthur Robinson.
A principal of Maurice Blackburn, Rebecca Gilsenan, said outside
the court the class action would have proceeded if the lower
estimate had been made originally.
"The damages are still very substantial and we still hold the view
that our clients are entitled to be compensated for what they
overpaid," she said.
Justice Jacobson has set aside six weeks from March 7 to hear the
case.
ANZ BANK: Court Wants to Speed Up Fee Gouging Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the federal court has
called on an international accounting firm to help it find the
easiest path through a AU$50 million class action against the ANZ
bank launched by more than 27,000 customers over alleged fee
gouging.
During a preliminary hearing in Melbourne on Feb. 10, Justice Ray
Finkelstein questioned a representative of ANZ's accounting firm
Deloitte which will undertake forensic accounting investigations
linked to the case.
Class action lawyers Maurice Blackburn are claiming around
AU$50 million for fees the banks charged, including dishonor fees
on bank accounts, as well as over limit fees and late payment fees
on credit cards.
It is Australia's largest ever class action, involving at least
27,000 individuals and businesses holding about 40,000 personal
and business accounts.
Justice Finkelstein discussed with the parties ways in which the
case could run as quickly and inexpensively as possible.
The claim seeks a refund of alleged unfair fees paid since 2004,
plus interest.
The average claim is about AU$1,500 per account holder, with the
range from hundreds of dollars to more than AU$35,000.
The legal action is being funded on a no-win no-fee basis by
litigation funder IMF Australia.
The case will return to the court on March 7.
Another 11 banks, including the Commonwealth, Westpac and National
Australia Bank, are expected to face similar actions against them.
AUTOMATIC DATA: Continues to Defend Class Suit on Client Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a purported class action lawsuit filed in California,
according to the Company's February 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.
In September 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleges that the
Company unlawfully handled certain client calls and seeks
statutory damages.
The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously and to seek
an early dismissal of the claims. Moreover, the services at issue
were performed by an independent third party vendor, and the
Company believes that it has the contractual right to full
indemnification from this vendor for any potential losses it might
incur with respect to the matter.
While it is too early to determine the potential for exposure to
the claims asserted by the class action, the Company does not
believe the claims, if adversely determined, would ultimately have
a material adverse effect on the Company in light of the
indemnification from the independent third party vendor.
AVIAT NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aviat Networks, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action complaint filed in Delaware.
Aviat Networks and certain of its current and former executive
officers and directors were named in a federal securities class
action complaint filed on September 15, 2008, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk
County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of Aviat Networks' securities from January 29, 2007 to
July 30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc.
who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for Aviat Networks'
shares as part of the merger between Stratex Networks and the
Microwave Communications Division of Harris Corporation.
Similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court
of Delaware on October 6 and October 30, 2008. Each complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and seeks, among other relief, determinations that the action
is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The actions were
consolidated on June 5, 2009 and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on July 29, 2009. On July 27, 2010, the Court
denied the motions to dismiss that Aviat Networks and the officer
and director defendants had filed.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intend
to defend itself vigorously.
No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.
BIG LOTS: Sued Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Big Lots cheats workers of
overtime pay, employees say in a class action filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court.
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Court Reverses Dismissal of IPO Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jeffrey, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a U.S.
appeals court reversed the dismissal of a proposed class action
against Blackstone Group LP, the largest private-equity firm,
alleging that it made inadequate disclosures before its initial
public offering.
The district court erred in throwing out the complaint in 2009
because the plaintiffs "plausibly allege" that Blackstone omitted
or misstated material information in its IPO prospectus, the U.S.
Court of Appeals in New York said in an opinion on Feb. 10. The
case was sent back to the lower court.
"We're delighted that the appeals court reversed the decision and
the investors will have their day in court," Sam Rudman, a lawyer
for the plaintiffs, said in a telephone interview.
The plaintiffs, including Landmen Partners Inc., sued Blackstone,
Chairman Stephen Schwarzman, and others claiming that at the time
of the 2007 IPO, two Blackstone portfolio companies and its real-
estate fund investments "were experiencing problems" that the firm
knew would hurt revenue.
"The plaintiffs' allegations are totally without merit and we will
mount a robust defense of this suit," Peter Rose, a spokesman for
New York-based Blackstone, said in an interview.
Blackstone and other investors bought a majority stake in FGIC
Corp. from General Electric Co. in 2003. An FGIC unit, Financial
Guaranty, sold insurance on collateralized debt obligations backed
by subprime mortgages, in the form of credit- default swaps,
according to the complaint.
FGIC Writedown
When mortgage-default rates began to rise, Blackstone should have
disclosed the "uncertainties" at the unit, the plaintiffs said.
Blackstone wrote down the value of its FGIC investment in fourth-
quarter 2007 results.
Other defendants in the suit include Michael Puglisi, Peter
Peterson and Hamilton James. The lead plaintiffs include Martin
Litwin, Max Poulter and Francis Brady.
Blackstone rose 31 cents, or 1.9%, to $17.06 at 4:15 p.m. in New
York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have climbed
21% this year.
The case is Litwin v. Blackstone Group LP, 09-4426, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York).
BOEING CO: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Suits on Wichita Sale
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Company continues to defend itself from two pending
ERISA-related class actions in connection with the sale of its
facility in Wichita, Kansas, according to the Company's Feb. 9,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.
The Company has been named as a defendant in two pending class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas, each related to the 2005 sale of its former Wichita
facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.
The first action involves allegations that Spirit's hiring
decisions following the sale were tainted by age discrimination,
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),
violated the Company's collective bargaining agreements, and
constituted retaliation. The case was brought in 2006 as a class
action on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit. During the
second quarter of 2010, the court granted summary judgment in
favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims. During the
third quarter of 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
reconsideration of the summary judgment decision.
The second action, initiated in 2007, alleges collective
bargaining agreement breaches and ERISA violations in connection
with alleged failures to provide benefits to certain former
employees of the Wichita facility. Discovery in the case is
ongoing. Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all
losses in the first action, with the exception of claims arising
from employment actions prior to January 1, 2005. While Spirit
has acknowledged a limited indemnification obligation in the
second action, the Company believes that Spirit is obligated to
indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the second action.
BOEING CO: 7th Circuit Decertifies Class in ERISA-Related Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Company won an appeal to decertify the class in an
ERISA-related lawsuit, according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.
On October 13, 2006, the Company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois. Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing
Company Voluntary Investment Plan (the VIP), alleged that fees and
expenses incurred by the VIP were and are unreasonable and
excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the VIP and its
participants, and were undisclosed to participants. The
plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA. During the first quarter of 2010, the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of trial proceedings in
the district court pending resolution of an appeal made by Boeing
in 2008 to the case's class certification order. On January 21,
2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's class
certification order and decertified the class. The Seventh
Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.
BOEING CO: Seeks Reconsideration of Denial of Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Company's motion for reconsideration of a court order
denying its motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action
lawsuit remains pending, according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.
On November 13, 2009, plaintiff shareholders filed a putative
securities fraud class action against The Boeing Company and two
of its senior executives in federal district court in Chicago.
This lawsuit arises from the Company's June 2009 announcement that
the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be postponed due to a
need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the
aircraft. Plaintiffs contend that the Company was aware before
June 2009 that the first flight could not take place as scheduled
due to issues with the side-of-body section of the aircraft, and
that the Company's determination not to announce this delay
earlier resulted in an artificial inflation of the Company's stock
price for a multi-week period in May and June 2009. In March
2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cognizable claim, and, on May 26, 2010, the
Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint in its
entirety. On
June 22, 2010, the Court accepted the plaintiff's amended
complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. On August 10,
2010, the Court denied the motion and on August 30, 2010, the
Company answered the amended complaint. On September 24, 2010,
the Company moved to strike the portions of the amended complaint
attributed to a confidential source and to dismiss the complaint
with prejudice. On October 14, 2010, the Court denied the
Company's motions. On December 10, 2010, the Company moved for
reconsideration of the Court's order denying its motion to
dismiss. Discovery has commenced.
In addition, plaintiff shareholders have filed three similar
shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule for
the 787 Dreamliner that closely track the allegations in the
putative class action lawsuit. Two of the suits were filed in
Illinois state court and have been consolidated. The remaining
derivative suit was filed in federal district court in Chicago. No
briefing or discovery has yet taken place in any of these
lawsuits. The Company believes the allegations in all of these
cases are without merit, and it intends to contest the cases
vigorously.
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. continues to defend itself
against a securities class action lawsuit pending in Michigan,
according to the Company's February 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.
On July 17, 2009 and July 23, 2009, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan against the Company and certain of
its executive officers. The lawsuits allege securities violations
related to the Company's public statements on FDA compliance
issues made between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009.
On November 9, 2009, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal was
entered by the Court dismissing one of the two cases, effectively
consolidating the cases. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a
consolidated and amended complaint, which names Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries Limited as an additional defendant. The defendants
then filed a Motion to Dismiss; however, the Court denied the
Motion to Dismiss, except as to one count against Sun Pharma.
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Stock Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. is facing a series of
class action lawsuits which stem from the proposed acquisition by
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Sun Pharma Global, Inc.,
of the Company's common stock, according to the Company's
February 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.
On December 9, 2010, and subsequent thereto, several purported
class action lawsuits were filed in the Wayne Court Circuit Court
against the Company, Sun Pharma, Sun Global, and the members of
the Board of Directors of the Company, arising out of the
previously disclosed proposal by Sun Pharma and Sun Global to
acquire all of the shares of the Company's common stock not held
by Sun Pharma and Sun Global at a price of $4.75 cash per share.
The suits allege breaches of fiduciary duties in relation to the
Proposal and Sun Pharma and Sun Global's attempt to take the
Company private at an alleged unfair price and with an unfair
process.
Generally, the complaints ask the Court to: (a) declare the case
as a class action; (b) declare that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duty; (c) declare that the Proposal is not procedurally
and financially fair to the Company's minority shareholders and
enjoin the transaction; (d) rule that the Company's Independent
Directors are incapable of evaluating the Proposal; and (e) award
any damages and attorneys fees.
CHINA GREEN: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Green Agriculture, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit pending in Nevada for allegedly filing
misleading financial statements, according to the Company's
February 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.
On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 12,
2009 and September 1, 2010. The complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, by making material misstatements and omissions about
the Company's true financial condition. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the financial statements for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2010 included in the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission are materially false and misleading on the basis that
the financial statements materially differ from certain financial
information the Company reported to certain governmental agencies
in the People's Republic of China. The plaintiffs claim that the
allegedly misleading financial statements inflated the price of
the Company's common stock and seek monetary damages in an amount
to be determined at trial.
CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs.com, reports that no one has
ever accused Chipotle of carrying "authentic" Mexican food, but
some of its employees may fit that description to a tee, judging
by the company's recent travails.
The popular burrito chain is in the midst of a government
crackdown on its alleged employment of illegal immigrants. An
investigation by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Agency discovered that employees at over 50 restaurants turned in
unverifiable I-9 forms -- also known as "Employment Eligibility
Verification forms" -- which companies provide to the government
to ensure that a worker is eligible to work in the U.S.
The investigation led to the firings of hundreds of workers at a
Chipotle in Minnesota, and some reports say that the dragnet has
expanded to restaurants in Washington, DC, and Virginia.
According to a Reuters report, Chipotle warned investors as early
as a year ago that it might be subject to a federal crackdown.
"We have been subject to audits by immigration authorities from
time to time," the company said in its 2009 annual reported, filed
last February.
"[A]t the time of that disclosure, we had not been notified by DHS
or any other government agency that any of our worker documents
were suspect," Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said in an e-mailed
statement to Reuters.
"We had no notice of any issues with our employees until we
received a Notice of Suspect Documents from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement in November 2010."
Class action by employees
Two of the terminated employees have filed a class action lawsuit
alleging that Chipotle failed to pay them back wages in a timely
fashion.
Tanya Cortes and Alejandro Juarez allege in their suit that
Chipotle broke Minnesota state law when it failed to give them all
earned compensation at the time they were fired.
Mr. Arnold told the Pioneer Press that the suit's allegations are
without merit.
"We have paid every employee everything that they were owed
including wages, accrued vacation and bonuses," he said in an
e-mail to the paper.
Consumer backlash
The issue is also causing a backlash among some consumers and
threatening to create a public relations nightmare for Chipotle,
which prides itself on providing "food with integrity." After the
Minnesota terminations were made public, eight protestors chained
themselves to the door of the restaurant, and were eventually
charged with trespassing after they refused to leave. Several of
the protestors were carrying signs that said, "Chipotle: You
cannot sell Mexican food and then sell out Mexican workers."
Indeed, Mr. Arnold -- who concedes he is juggling a lot of plates
at the moment -- sounded melancholy when addressing the issue
recently in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.
"Ours is a culture that is built on recognizing top-performing
employees and developing them into future leaders, so this is a
particularly troubling situation for us because of the impact this
has on future generations of leaders and managers," he said.
"We'd rather keep all these people but under the law we can't do
that."
COMPUTER SCIENCE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Morefield Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation is still waiting for a ruling on its
motion to dismiss a class action complaint initiated by Shirley
Morefield, according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2010.
On May 29, 2009, a class action lawsuit entitled Shirley Morefield
vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case No. A-09-591338-C,
was brought in state court in Clark County, Nevada, against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors
asserting claims for declarative and injunctive relief related to
stock option backdating. The alleged factual basis for the claims
is the same as that which was alleged in a prior derivative case,
In re CSC Shareholder Derivative Litigation, CV 06-5288, filed in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, which was dismissed on August
9, 2007, by that court. This dismissal was affirmed on appeal by
the Ninth Circuit, which judgment is final. The defendants in the
Morefield case deny the allegations in the complaint. On June 30,
2009, the Company removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. 2:09-cv-1176-KJD-GWF.
On motion made by the plaintiffs, the District Court remanded the
case to state court on February 18, 2010. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their
opposition on June 14, 2010. A hearing took place on August 18,
2010. A decision is pending.
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A district court ruling dismissed a consolidated ERISA class
action filed against Computer Sciences Corp. and other defendants,
according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.
On August 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class action alleging stock
options backdating at the Company and miscellaneous violations of
ERISA fiduciary duties with respect to CSC's 401(k) plan was filed
in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York
entitled Quan, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-3927. On Sept. 21,
2006, a related ERISA class action was filed in the same court
entitled Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-5100. The complaints
named as defendants the Company, the Company's Retirement and
Employee Benefits Plans Committee and various directors and
officers. The ERISA actions were consolidated and, on Feb. 28,
2007, plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint.
On January 8, 2008, the District Court granted a motion to
transfer the consolidated cases to the United States District
Court in Los Angeles, California, where the cases were
consolidated before the District Court judge in Case No. CV 08-
2398-SJO. Class certification was granted on December 29, 2008.
Defendants and plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment
on May 4, 2009, and supplemental briefs thereafter. On July 13,
2009, the District Court entered an Order granting summary
judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants. On
September 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the District Court in favor of the Company and the
other defendants.
On October 21, 2010, plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit to
rehear en banc the September 30, 2010 decision. Rehearing was
denied by the Ninth Circuit on December 2, 2010. On January 26,
2011, an order terminating the case was issued by the District
Court.
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Defends Merger-Related Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc., is defending itself from class action
lawsuits filed by shareholders who are against the Company's
proposed merger with Standard Microsystems Corporation, according
to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2010.
Between January 10, 2011 and January 25, 2011, the Company, the
members of the Company's board of directors and, in certain of the
lawsuits, the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, its
Chief Financial Officer, SMSC and/or Comet Acquisition Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of SMSC, were named as defendants in
twelve purported class action lawsuits that were filed by the
Company's stockholders in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange and an additional four such lawsuits
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On
January 20, 2011, one of the plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate the California actions and for the appointment of a
lead counsel. On or about February 3, 2011, the Delaware
plaintiffs filed a proposed Order of Consolidation and Appointment
of Lead Counsel.
The suits allege, among other things, that the Company's directors
and, in one case, certain of its executive officers breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in negotiating and
entering into the Merger Agreement and by agreeing to sell the
Company at an unfair price, pursuant to an unfair process and/or
pursuant to unreasonable terms, and that the Company and, in
certain of the lawsuits, SMSC and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The suits seek, among other
things, to enjoin consummation of the merger. At this stage, it
is not possible to predict the outcome of these proceedings or
their impact on the Company. The Company believes the allegations
made in these complaints are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend these actions. No amounts have been accrued for
these matters as of December 31, 2010.
CPI INTERNATIONAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CPI International, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a class action lawsuit relating to its
merger with Comtech Telecommunications Corp., according to the
Company's Feb. 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.
On July 1, 2010, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed against CPI International, the directors of CPI
International and Comtech Telecommunications Corp. in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa
Clara entitled Continuum Capital v. Michael Targoff, et al. (Case
No. 110CV175940). The lawsuit concerned the proposed merger
between the Company and Comtech, and generally asserted claims
alleging, among other things, that each member of the Company's
board of directors breached his fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the terms of the previously proposed merger and by failing to
provide stockholders with allegedly material information related
to the proposed merger, and that Comtech aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the Company's board of directors. The lawsuit sought, among other
things, class action certification and monetary relief. On
July 28, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, making
generally the same claims against the same defendants, and seeking
the same relief. In addition, the amended complaint generally
alleged that the consideration that would have been paid to the
Company's stockholders under the terms of the proposed merger was
inadequate. On September 7, 2010, the Company terminated the
Comtech sale agreement.
On November 24, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement and
plan of merger with Catalyst Acquisition, Inc., an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of CPI International Acquisition, Inc. CPI
International Acquisition, Inc. is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of The Veritas Capital Fund IV, L.P.
On December 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which removed Comtech as a defendant, added allegations
related to the current pending merger and to the Veritas Fund, and
added a claim for attorneys' fees. On December 23, 2010, after
the Company filed its preliminary proxy statement relating to a
special meeting in connection with the approval of the current
pending merger, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint,
adding allegations related to the disclosures in the preliminary
proxy statement. The third amended complaint seeks, among other
things, class action certification and monetary relief.
The Company believes the action is without merit; however, to
avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation and to complete the
proposed merger without delay, the defendants have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding concerning settlement. The settlement
and any attorneys' fees award are subject to Court approval.
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, among other things,
the defendants will receive a release of claims and the plaintiff
will dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice in
exchange for, among other agreements, the Company's agreement to
make certain additional disclosures concerning the current pending
merger, which disclosures have been included in a definitive proxy
statement the Company filed on January 11, 2011. The Memorandum
of Understanding also provides that, upon Court approval and
dismissal of the action, the Company, its insurers or its
successor in interest will cause to be paid to the plaintiff's
counsel approximately $600,000 in full settlement of any claim for
attorneys' fees and all expenses. The Company expect $400,000 of
this payment to be borne by its insurance carrier.
DEL MONTE: Bull & Lifshitz Files Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz LLP on February 10 disclosed that it has filed on
January 21, 2011, a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court Northern District of California on behalf of all
current shareholders of Del Monte Corp. in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Del Monte by an investor group led by
funds affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vestar
Capital Partners and Centerview Partners (collectively the
"Sponsors") in a cash transaction valued at approximately $5.3
billion, including the assumption of approximately $1.3 billion in
net debt. The Complaint charges Del Monte and its board of
directors with, among other things, violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9. In particular, the Complaint
alleges that the defendants have issued materially false and
misleading statements in its proxy statements regarding the
proposed transaction wherein the Sponsors intend to acquire
Del Monte.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 10, 2011. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
BULL & LIFSHITZ, LLP
Telephone: (212) 213-6222
E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com.
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. AT THIS TIME YOU MAY DO NOTHING AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS
MEMBER. YOU MAY ALSO RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP -- http://www.nyclasslaw.com/-- is a New
York City-based law firm with significant experience representing
investors in merger-related shareholder class actions, shareholder
derivative actions, and securities fraud class actions.
DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Appeals in NetSilicon IPO Suit Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals remain pending in the class action related to the initial
public offering of NetSilicon, Inc., according to Digi
International Inc.'s February 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.
On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting claims relating to the initial
public offering of the Company's subsidiary NetSilicon, Inc., and
approximately 300 other public companies. The Company acquired Net
Silicon, Inc. on February 13, 2002. The complaint names the
Company as a defendant along with NetSilicon, certain of its
officers and certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's IPO,
among numerous others, and asserts, among other things, that
NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration statement violated
federal securities laws because they contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of
NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in NetSilicon's
IPO to the underwriters' customers. The Company believes that the
claims against the NetSilicon defendants are without merit and
have defended the litigation vigorously. Pursuant to a stipulation
between the parties, the two named officers were dismissed from
the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002.
The parties advised the District Court on February 25, 2009 that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety. A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement. Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement. Ten appeals were
initially filed objection to the definition of the settlement
class and fairness of the settlement, and since the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010,
five of those appeals remain pending. Two appeal briefs have been
filed by the remaining five objector groups, and those appeals
remain pending.
Under the settlement, the Company's insurers are to pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company would bear no financial liability beyond its deductible of
$250,000. While there can be no guarantee as to the ultimate
outcome of this pending lawsuit, the Company expects that its
liability insurance will be adequate to cover any potential
unfavorable outcome, less the applicable deductible amount of
$250,000 per claim. As of December 31, 2010, the Company has an
accrued liability for the anticipated settlement of $300,000 which
it believes is adequate and reflects the amount of loss that is
probable and a receivable related to the insurance proceeds of
$50,000, which represents the anticipated settlement of $300,000
less the Company's $250,000 deductible. In the event the Company
should have losses that exceed the limits of the liability
insurance, those losses could have a material adverse effect on
its business and its consolidated results of operations or
financial condition.
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Defends Alberta Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. operates a store network through Dollar
Financial Group, Inc. The Company, through its subsidiaries,
provides retail financial services to the general public through a
network of 1,193 locations operating principally as Money Mart(R),
The Money Shop, Loan Mart(R), Insta-Cheques(R) and The Check
Cashing Store in 17 states, Canada, the United Kingdom and the
Republic of Ireland.
In 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
representative action against Money Mart(R), Dollar Financial
Group, Inc., and two other individual defendants in the Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of
consumers. The action seeks restitution and damages, including
punitive damages. In 2004, Money Mart served Mr. Young a demand
for arbitration. In July 2010, Dollar Financial and the
individual defendants in the case were dismissed.
In 2006, a former customer, H. Craig Day, commenced a purported
class action against Dollar Financial, Money Mart and several of
the Company's franchisees in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Canada on behalf of a putative class of consumers who
obtained short-term loans from Money Mart in Alberta. The
allegations and relief sought in the Day Litigation action are
substantially the same as those in the Young Litigation, but
relate to a claim period that commences before and ends after the
claim period in the Young Litigation and excludes the claim period
described in the Young Litigation. In 2007, a demand for
arbitration was served on the Day action plaintiffs; in April
2010, plaintiffs' indicated that they would proceed with the
claims in the Alberta Litigation; Money Mart and the franchisees
have filed motions to enforce the arbitration clause and to stay
the actions.
Neither of the actions comprising the Alberta Litigation has been
certified to date as a class action.
No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.
As of December 31, 2010, an aggregate of approximately C$52.9
million is included in the Company's accrued liabilities relating
to the Canadian class action proceedings.
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Defends Manitoba Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. operates a store network through Dollar
Financial Group, Inc. The Company, through its subsidiaries,
provides retail financial services to the general public through a
network of 1,193 locations operating principally as Money Mart(R),
The Money Shop, Loan Mart(R), Insta-Cheques(R) and The Check
Cashing Store in 17 states, Canada, the United Kingdom and the
Republic of Ireland.
In 2004, an action was filed against Money Mart in Manitoba on
behalf of a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term
loans from Money Mart. The action has not been certified to date
as a class action. If the action proceeds, Money Mart intends to
seek a stay of the action on the grounds that the plaintiff
entered into an arbitration and mediation agreement with Money
Mart with respect to the matters which are the subject of the
action. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously.
No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.
As of December 31, 2010, an aggregate of approximately C$52.9
million is included in the Company's accrued liabilities relating
to the Canadian class action proceedings.
DYNAVOX INC: Amended Complaint Filing Deadline Is Feb. 18
---------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against DynaVox,
Inc., has until Feb. 18, 2011, to file an amended complaint,
according to the Company's February 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.
On October 14, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, two of its officers, Edward L.
Donnelly, Jr. and Kenneth D. Misch, and two of the underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased our Class A common stock pursuant to the Company's
prospectus dated April 21, 2010, filed with the SEC in accordance
with Rule 424(b) of the Securities Act on April 23, 2010. The
complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements in the Company's prospectus in light of the
Company's September 30, 2010 press release announcing it had
experienced a softening of demand for both its speech generating
devices and software products during the first quarter of its
fiscal year 2011 which ended October 1, 2010. The press release
also announced that as a result of the softening of demand
operating results for the fiscal first quarter would not be
consistent with historical performance or indicative of what
management believes to be the Company's long-term future operating
potential.
Under a stipulation entered into by the parties, the lead
plaintiff has until February 18, 2011 to file an amended complaint
and the Company will file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on or before April 19, 2011.
FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Using Children's Profiles Without Consent
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Facebook misappropriates the names and likeness of children and
uses them in ads without permission from their parents or
grandparents. The class claims that children are unable to stop
Facebook from using their names and photos on a Facebook page if
they have "liked" it.
This constitutes an "endorsement," and use of the kids' names and
photos in "Friend Finder" also constitutes commercial use without
legal consent, according to the complaint in Superior Court.
The complaint states: "Since late 2007, Facebook Inc. has been
selling advertisements in Facebook as its primary means of
generating income. With complete access to the information
provided in users' profiles as well as the information generated
through users' networking activities, Facebook Inc. is uniquely
able to offer advertisers the ability to direct their ads to very
specific demographics. . . .
"[A]dvertisements are displayed on Facebook along with a 'Like'
button or, in the case of events, the ability to RSVP through the
ad itself. When a user When a user 'Likes' a Facebook page
through an ad or responds to an even, the user's action is
recorded on the Facebook page or event page along with the user's
name and likeness. For instance, if plaintiff [Juliet] Meth were
to 'Like' and advertisement by XYZ Inc., when her Facebook friends
viewed XYZ Inc.'s Facebook page, they would see '1 Friend Likes'
that page, with Meth's name and photo appearing in the margin."
The class claims this violates Article 1 Section 1 of the
California Constitution, on privacy; and section 3344 of the Civil
Code, the right of publicity law.
They seek disgorgement of unjust profits, statutory damages,
attorneys fees and an injunction.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Tamblyn, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 231
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: 916-492-1100
FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From Braun IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order approving the settlement of a class action
lawsuit against Braun Consulting, Inc., an affiliate of Fair Isaac
Corp., remain pending, according to Fair Isaac's February 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.
Braun, which Fair Isaac acquired in November 2004, was a defendant
in a lawsuit filed on November 26, 2001, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 01
CV 10629) that alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with Braun's initial public offering in August 1999.
This lawsuit is among approximately 300 coordinated putative class
actions against certain issuers, their officers and directors, and
underwriters with respect to such issuers' initial public
offerings. As successor-in-interest to Braun, Fair Isaac entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement along with most of
the other defendant issuers in this coordinated litigation, where
such issuers and their officers and directors would be dismissed
with prejudice, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,
including approval of the Court. Under the terms of this
Agreement, Fair Isaac would not pay any amount of the settlement.
However, since December 2006, certain procedural matters
concerning the class status have been decided in the district and
appellate courts of the Second Circuit, ultimately determining
that no class status exists for the plaintiffs. Since there is no
class status, there could be no agreement, thus the District Court
entered an order formally denying the motion for final approval of
the settlement agreement.
On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval. This
settlement requires no financial contribution from Fair Isaac.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10,
2009. The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on September 10,
2009. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the settlement and certified the settlement classes on October
5, 2009. The Court determined that the settlement is fair to the
class members, approved the settlement and dismissed, with
prejudice, the case against the Company and its individual
defendants. Notices of appeal of the opinion granting final
approval have been filed. Due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation and because the settlement remains subject to appeal,
the ultimate outcome of the matter is uncertain.
FOREX CAPITAL: Morgan Business Trial Group Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Business Trial Group of Morgan & Morgan, P.A. filed a class
action lawsuit on Feb. 10 against Forex Capital Markets, LLC
alleging fraud and racketeering by the nation's largest Forex
dealer.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Manhattan Division), alleges that
FXCM has bilked thousands of customers out of hundreds of millions
of dollars using deceptive and unfair trade practices, including
falsely portraying its Forex trading platform as a fair,
transparent and true foreign currency exchange, when instead it is
a "rigged game" designed to systematically separate customers from
their money.
The Plaintiff, William H. Sanders, of Muscogee, Oklahoma, brought
the action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
FXCM customers, accusing FXCM of fraud by misrepresenting itself
as a trading platform that is free from dealer intervention or
manipulation. Instead, Mr. Sanders alleges, FXCM uses a number of
devices and tricks, including software applications, designed
specifically to interfere with customers' trades.
The Complaint further alleges that FXCM engaged in a pattern of
racketeering activity by collaborating with its software
developers and programmers to develop a "diabolical" software
application that provides FXCM with a myriad of tools and system
commands with which to interfere with customers' trades, including
routing trades to "slow" servers and sending false "error"
messages when customers attempt to close out profitable trades.
Finally, Mr. Sanders alleges in the Complaint that FXCM lured
thousands of customers to its trading platform by promoting a
"demo account" which was touted as providing customers with a true
market trading experience. Instead, he claims, once "live"
trading commences, FXCM deploys specially designed software to
manipulate customers' trades.
Lead Trial Counsel Tucker H. Byrd, of the Morgan & Morgan Business
Trial Group of Orlando, Florida, stated, "We are proud to be
representing Mr. Sanders in this action, which we believe will be
an important step in bolstering accountability in an industry that
has been largely unregulated since inception. We believe, as the
Complaint alleges, that Forex Capital Markets, LLC has taken
advantage of the trust placed in it by its customers, causing
substantial financial harm to this group of people, and we are
committed to working to recover those losses."
FXCM is the nation's largest Forex Dealer Merchant. The company
recently went public and trades on the New York Stock Exchange.
CONTACT: Tucker H. Byrd, Esq.
THE BUSINESS TRIAL GROUP OF MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N Orange Ave.
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: 407-244-9494
E-mail: tbyrd@businesstrialgroup.com
INTERNATIONAL ASSETS: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Missouri Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Assets Holdings Corporation's wholly owned
subsidiary remains a defendant in a consolidated purported class
action brought in a federal court in Missouri, according to the
Company's Feb. 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.
A wholly-owned subsidiary of International Assets, FCStone Group,
Inc. and certain officers of FCStone were named as defendants in
an action filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008. A consolidated
amended complaint was subsequently filed on September 25, 2009.
The action, which purported to be brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between November 15,
2007 and February 24, 2009, sought to hold defendants liable under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 for allegedly false statements and failure to disclose
adverse facts relating to an interest rate hedge, the bad debt
reserve of FCStone and losses sustained by FCStone in connection
with energy trades in a customer account.
On November 16, 2010, the Court denied FCStone's motion to dismiss
and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint on or
before December 15, 2010. The plaintiffs chose not to amend and
replead the complaint with respect to the interest rate hedge and
FCStone's bad debt reserve. Plaintiffs' amended complaint deals
only with the losses sustained in connection with energy trades in
a customer account. As a result, the class of shareholders on
whose behalf this action is purportedly brought will include
shareholders who purchased FCStone common stock from a date, not
yet determined, after November 15, 2007 and possibly as late as
November 1, 2008.
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court to Hear Motion to Preclude on Feb. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit filed by Atlantic Lotteries in Canada,
according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 1, 2011.
In May 2010, Atlantic Lotteries commenced an action against
International Game Technology, VLC, Inc., and IGT-Canada, wholly
owned subsidiaries of International Game Technology, and other
manufacturers of video lottery machines in the Supreme Court of
New Foundland and Labrador seeking indemnification for any damages
that may be awarded against Atlantic Lotteries in a class action
suit also filed in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and
Labrador. A motion for class certification has been filed by
plaintiff but has not yet scheduled for argument.
In the interim, plaintiff has filed a motion to preclude the third
party defendants from participating on the motion to certify;
plaintiff's motion to preclude is scheduled to be heard on
February 23, 2011.
International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems
products. IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired
gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production
facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the
United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan
and China. The company derives its revenues from the
distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services
and licensing. It operates in two segments: North America and
International. North America consists of its operations in the
United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues
during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009).
International consists of its operations in all other
jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues
during fiscal 2009. In January 2009, it acquired Progressive
Gaming International Corporation.
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Motion to Dismiss Amended Nevada Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act against International Game Technology and certain of its
officers, one of whom is a director. The complaint alleges that
between November 1, 2007, and October 30, 2008, the defendants
inflated IGT's stock price through a series of materially false
and misleading statements or omissions regarding IGT's business,
operations, and prospects. The Court has appointed a lead
plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 26,
2010, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
June 17, 2010.
No updates were provided in the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 1, 2011.
International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems
products. IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired
gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production
facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the
United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan
and China. The company derives its revenues from the
distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services
and licensing. It operates in two segments: North America and
International. North America consists of its operations in the
United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues
during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009).
International consists of its operations in all other
jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues
during fiscal 2009. In January 2009, it acquired Progressive
Gaming International Corporation.
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in International Game Technology's
employee pension plans, naming as defendants the Company, the IGT
Profit Sharing Plan Committee, and several current and former
officers and directors. The complaints (which seek unspecified
damages) allege breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132.
The complaints allege similar facts as the securities class action
lawsuit. The complaints further allege that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties to Plan Participants by failing to
disclose material facts to Plan Participants, failing to exercise
their fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the Participants,
failing to properly manage Plan assets, failing to diversify Plan
assets, and permitting Participants to elect to invest in Company
stock. The actions, filed in the US District Court for the
District of Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International
Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al.
v. International Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585.
In October 2009, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the two
actions which motion was granted. On April 9, 2010, defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
No updates were provided in the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 1, 2011.
International Game Technology -- https://www.igt.com/ -- is a
global gaming company specializing in the design, manufacture,
and marketing of electronic gaming equipment and systems
products. IGT maintains an array of entertainment-inspired
gaming product lines. In addition to its United States production
facilities in Nevada, it manufactures gaming products in the
United Kingdom, and through third-party manufacturers in Japan
and China. The company derives its revenues from the
distribution of electronic gaming equipment, systems, services
and licensing. It operates in two segments: North America and
International. North America consists of its operations in the
United States and Canada, comprising 77% of consolidated revenues
during the fiscal year ended October 3, 2009 (fiscal 2009).
International consists of its operations in all other
jurisdictions worldwide, comprising 23% of consolidated revenues
during fiscal 2009. In January 2009, it acquired Progressive
Gaming International Corporation.
JOHN THOMAS FINANCIAL: Sued for Violation of New York Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tareq Abed, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
John Thomas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 650341/2011 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty. February 8, 2011), seeks declaratory
relief and monetary damages for defendants' willful violation of
12 NYCRR Section 142-2.2, and New York Labor Law Sections
191(1)(c), 193, and 198-b. NYCRR is the acronym for the New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations.
Mr. Abed, who worked for defendants as a stock broker from
August 2009 until October 2010, accuses the New York City-based
independent broker dealer and its owner and president, defendant
Anastasios Belesis, of failing to properly compensate class
members for all hours worked and making improper deductions from
their paychecks.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Kadushin, Esq.
Charles Joseph, Esq.
Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
233 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10279
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
LIFE PARTNERS: Briscoe Law Firm Files Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, along with Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of Life Partners Holdings, Inc. between May 29, 2007
and January 20, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Life Partners, through its subsidiary, Life Partners, Inc.,
operates in the secondary market for life insurance generally
known as "life settlements." Life settlement transactions involve
the sale of an existing life insurance policy to another party -
the policyholder receives an immediate cash payment; the purchaser
takes an ownership interest in the policy and receives an
ownership interest in the policy's death benefit when the insured
dies.
The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that, among other things: (1)
the Company routinely used life expectancy data that produced
inaccurately short life expectancy reports, which were
subsequently used to sell life settlement policies to investors;
(2) the Company concealed the historical rate at which individuals
insured by life settlement policies sold by Life Partners had
lived past the life expectancy rates previously provided to
investors, such that the Company's investors were unable to assess
the accuracy or reliability of such data; (3) by underestimating
life expectancy data to investors, the Company was able to charge
substantially larger fees when brokering life settlement policies;
(4) as a result, the Company's financial statements were false and
misleading at all relevant times; and (5), as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial
performance and future business prospects were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made.
If you currently own or purchased LPHI shares and would like
additional information regarding this lawsuit or if you have
information regarding the allegations against the company, please
contact:
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.
LYCOMING ENGINES: Class Certification of Engine Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy Savage denied class certification of two
consolidated putative nationwide class actions, Charles Powers, on
Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of the Class v. Lycoming Engines,
Avco Corporation and Textron Inc.; and Plane Time, LLC, on its Own
Behalf and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Lycoming
Engines, Avco Corporation and Textron Inc., Case Nos. 06-cv-2993
and 06-cv-4228 (E.D. Pa.). Lycoming is a piston engine supplier
for general aviation aircraft. The Plaintiffs sought to represent
a class of owners or previous owners of aircraft equipped with
Lycoming engines, claiming that the Lycoming Engines were
manufactured with defective crankshafts that can cause a total
loss of engine power and in-flight engine failures. The
Plaintiffs asserted that Lycoming knew of and concealed the defect
that prevents the crankshafts from functioning as intended.
A copy of District Judge Savage's memorandum opinion filed
February 9, 2011 is available at http://is.gd/OlVwkTfrom
Leagle.com.
MEDCATH CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Vs. Bakersfield Hospital
---------------------------------------------------------------
During October 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
an individual against the Bakersfield Heart Hospital, a
consolidated subsidiary of MedCath Corporation. In the complaint
the plaintiff alleges that under California law, and specifically
under the Knox-Keene Healthcare Service Plan Act of 1975 and under
the Health and Safety Code of California, California prohibits the
practice of "balance billing" for patients who are provided
emergency services. On November 24, 2010, the court granted the
Bakersfield Heart Hospital's motion to strike plaintiff's class
allegations.
No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2010.
MONSANTO CO: Sued for Violating Migrant Workers' Rights
-------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that 16 migrant
workers say in a federal class action that Monsanto did not pay
them as promised and stuffed them into "unsafe, substandard and
overcrowded" housing after persuading them to go to Indiana to
work in the cornfields.
The workers say Monsanto agent Ramon Cota recruited them in
Arizona in June 2010. They say Monsanto promised them specified
wages, an advance once they arrived in Indiana, free
transportation and free housing.
But the workers say Monsanto and Mr. Cota put them in "unsafe,
substandard and overcrowded" housing that was not "adequately
furnished to meet the needs of plaintiffs."
The workers, who were hired to detassel corn, say "were not given
all of the proper equipment to work in the rain and irrigation
system," and that Monsanto and Mr. Cota did not pay their wages
due or give them itemized pay statements.
The workers say Monsanto and Mr. Cota violated the Agricultural
Workers Protection Act and the Arizona Wage Payment Law.
They seek unpaid wages, treble damages, statutory damages, costs
and an injunction.
A copy of the Complaint in Sandoval, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-00256 (D. Ariz.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/10/Monsanto.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pamela M. Bridge, Esq.
George H. McKay, Esq.
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
305 South Second Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 258-3434, ext. 2650
E-mail: pbridge@clsaz.org
gmckay@clsaz.org
MUELLER WATER: Settlement Fairness Hearing This Thursday
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama will
hold a settlement fairness hearing on Feb. 17, 2011, regarding the
settlement of a class action lawsuit against Mueller Water
Products, Inc.'s affiliate, U.S. Pipe Valve & Hydrant, LLC, and a
number of co-defendant foundry-related companies.
U.S. Pipe and a number of co-defendant foundry-related companies
were named in a putative civil class action case originally filed
in April 2005 in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, and
removed by defendants to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under the Class Action Fairness Act. The
putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint with
the U.S. District Court in December 2006. The amended complaint
alleged state law tort claims (negligence, failure to warn,
wantonness, nuisance, trespass and outrage) arising from the
creation and disposal of "foundry sand" alleged to contain harmful
levels of PCBs and other toxins, including arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead and zinc. The plaintiffs originally sought damages
for real and personal property and for other unspecified personal
injury. On June 4, 2007, a motion to dismiss was granted to U.S.
Pipe and certain co-defendants as to the claims for negligence,
failure to warn, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The remainder of
the complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended
complaint. On July 6, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's
former facility located at 2101 West 10th Street in Anniston,
Alabama and no longer alleges personal injury claims. Plaintiffs
filed a third amended complaint on July 27, 2007. U.S. Pipe and
the other defendants have moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint. On September 24, 2008, the court issued an order on the
motion, dismissing the claims for wantonness and permitting the
plaintiffs to move forward with their claims of nuisance, trespass
and negligence. The court has ordered the parties to mediate the
dispute. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the matter and submitted the settlement agreement to the
court for approval on October 26, 2010. On October 27, 2010, the
court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and
setting the settlement fairness hearing for February 17, 2011.
No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2010.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Class Action From Ticketholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that the Dallas
Cowboys and the NFL face a class action from ticketholders who
were barred from Super Bowl on Feb. 6 because a fire marshal found
their temporary seats unsafe. Four hundred ticketholders were
turned away and 800 were given seats elsewhere, some with
obstructed views. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, a defendant, had
folding chairs set out to try to break the Super Bowl attendance
record.
Named plaintiff Mike Dolabi, a local from Tarrant County, is
particularly upset because, he paid for a personal seat license of
at least $100,000 per seat for his "Founders of Cowboys Stadium"
status, which the Cowboys promised would entitle him the "best
sightlines in the stadium," according to the federal complaint.
Mr. Dolabi and the other named plaintiff, Steve Simms of
Pennsylvania, seek class damages of more than $5 million for
fraud, breach of contract, deceit, deceptive trade practices and
concealment.
Mr. Simms was one of 1,200 unlucky fans who were informed that
installation of his temporary seats had not been completed and
were deemed unsafe by the fire marshal.
About 800 fans were accommodated with seats elsewhere in the
stadium, but Mr. Simms was one of 400 who were denied seats
altogether.
Mr. Dolabi says he was assigned seats with obstructed views.
The plaintiffs say that nearly all of the temporary seats, on
metal fold-out chairs, lacked reasonable views of the stadium's
highly touted, giant video board.
In response to the seating debacle, the NFL offered displaced fans
a choice: a free ticket to next year's Super Bowl game and $2,400,
which is three times the face value of their game ticket; or a
free ticket to any future Super Bowl game, round-trip airfare and
hotel accommodations provided by the NFL.
The plaintiffs say the offer is insufficient, that it does not
cover all travel costs, nor compensate for their disappointment
and frustration.
Nor does a triple face value refund cover the cost many fans paid
for their tickets, they say.
And the plaintiffs say that with the labor dispute between NFL
owners and players continuing, there is no way for the defendants
to ensure that there will be a Super Bowl next season.
A copy of the Complaint in Simms, et al. v. Jones, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-00248 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/10/SuperBowl.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.
Lisa A. Wegner, Esq.
EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
450 Newport Center Drive, Second Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: 949-706-7000
E-mail: mavenatti@eoalaw.com
lwegner@eoalaw.com
- and -
Christopher S. Ayres, Esq.
R. Jack Ayres, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF R. JACK AYRES, JR., P.C.
4350 Beltway Drive
Addison, TX 75001
Telephone: 972-991-2222
E-mail: csayres@ayreslawoffice.com
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Red Light Camera Suit Assigned to Judge Julien
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports
that a class action suit against the city of New Orleans has been
reassigned to its fourth judge and now waits for conference dates
to be set in Orleans Parish Civil District Court.
Metairie lawyer Joseph McMahon III filed the suit in March 2010,
claiming that the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES)
installed by the city of New Orleans is unconstitutional.
Mr. McMahon filed the suit after he successfully fought a ticket
issued against him for running a red light in Orleans Parish.
The case was originally assigned to Judge Herbert Cade, but
Judge Cade recused himself on account that his son, Melvin Cade,
works for the Traffic Hearing Committee.
Judge Kern Reese was given the case but also had to recuse himself
in October 2010 because he received a ticket issued by the ATES.
The case was assigned to Judge Sidney Cates IV, who recused
himself two weeks later because he also received a traffic ticket
through the system.
The case is now assigned to Judge Ethel Julien.
Mr. McMahon filed his class action suit despite defense opposition
that "hearing on a class certification is improper because the
city has not made an appearance before the court in the present
matter."
This suit is one of at least four cases against the city and
American Traffic Solutions (ATS) -- the company that runs and
oversees the ATES -- over the red light cameras.
In December 2010, New Orleans attorney Joseph Albe filed a
petition for judicial review on behalf of his wife who received a
speeding ticket from an automated traffic camera. Judge Julien is
also hearing a case filed pro se by Orleans resident Paul Valteau
Jr.
All the cases against ATS and the city claim that the red light
and traffic camera systems are unconstitutional. New Orleans
attorney Edward Washington III filed a petition for injunction,
claiming the cameras violated the New Orleans city charter.
In September 2010, Judge Paulette Irons ruled in favor of
Washington and ordered New Orleans' red-light and traffic cameras
stop issuing any more tickets. The ruling was later upheld by the
Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Louisiana Supreme
Court later deferred to Irons' ruling.
In November 2010, the New Orleans City Council voted 6-1 to move
oversight of the city's red light and traffic cameras to the New
Orleans Police Department (NOPD) from the Public Works Department
(PWD). The ordinance made the cameras compliant with the city
charter, which states the NOPD is to administer all traffic
tickets.
ATS submitted a reply with 18 affirmative defenses to
Mr. McMahon's suit Feb. 7. ATS contests that Mr. McMahon has not
stated any cause of action, that his claims are prescribed based
on "the doctrine of laches [and] res judicata" and that he "has
suffered no loss, injury or damage."
New Orleans attorneys Harry Rosenberg and Allen Miller, and Baton
Rouge attorneys Alston Johnson II and Jessica Coco are
representing ATS.
Tickets for running a red light cost $145 while speeding tickets
can range from $80 to $240. New Orleans has collected at least
$9.4 million in revenues from the tickets and a proposed 2011
budget projects $18 million in revenue this year.
NCL CORP: Continues to Defend Wage-Related Class Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of NCL Corporation Ltd. continues to defend itself in
a wage-related class action lawsuit in Florida, according to the
Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2010.
In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of crew members
alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant to the
Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a loss of
retirement benefits. The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to these claims and, accordingly, are vigorously
defending this action and are not able at this time to estimate
the impact of these proceedings.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Class Cert. Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation is still awaiting a decision on an
appeal by plaintiffs on the ruling of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California denying class certification in
a putative class action commenced against the Northrop Grumman
Retirement Plan B.
On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement
Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled
as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al.,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The putative class representatives alleged violations of ERISA and
breaches of fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to the
Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B. The modification relates to
the employer-funded portion of the pension benefit available
during a five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008.
The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and in
2008, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all
remaining defendants on all claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and
in May 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the
District Court and remanded the matter back to the District Court
for further proceedings, finding that there was ambiguity in a
1998 summary plan description related to the employer funded
component of the pension benefit. After the remand, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. The parties also
filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On Jan. 26, 2010, the
District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plan and
denied plaintiffs' motion. The District Court also denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and struck the trial
date of March 23, 2010 as unnecessary given the Court's grant of
summary judgment for the Plan. On Feb. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs
appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
Based upon the information available, the company believes that
the resolution of any of these claims and legal proceedings listed
above would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/-- is an
integrated enterprise consisting of businesses that cover the
entire defense spectrum, from undersea to outer space and into
cyberspace. The company is aligned into seven segments
categorized into four primary businesses. The Mission Systems,
Information Technology, and Technical Services segments are
presented as Information and Services. The Integrated Systems and
Space Technology segments are presented as Aerospace. The
Electronics and Ships segments are each presented as separate
businesses.
ORION ENERGY: Fairness Hearing on IPO Suit Set for April 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will
conduct a fairness hearing on April 14, 2011, on the preliminary
agreement reached in the consolidated IPO class action lawsuit
against Orion Energy Systems, Inc., according to the Company's
Feb. 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.
In February and March 2008, three class action lawsuits were filed
in the New York District Court against the Company, several of its
officers, all members of its then existing board of directors, and
certain underwriters relating to the Company's December 2007
initial public offering. The plaintiffs claimed to represent
those persons who purchased shares of our common stock from
December 18, 2007 through February 6, 2008. The plaintiffs
alleged, among other things, that the defendants made
misstatements and failed to disclose material information in our
IPO registration statement and prospectus. The complaints alleged
various claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
complaints sought, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified damages, fees, and other relief as the court may deem
just and proper.
On August 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the New York District Court. On
September 15, 2008, the Company and the other director and officer
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint,
and the underwriters filed a separate motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on January 16, 2009. After oral argument
on August 19, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motions to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint on September 4, 2009, and the defendants filed
an answer to the complaint on October 9, 2009.
In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company reached a
preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuits and on
January 3, 2011, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement. The court has scheduled a fairness
hearing for April 14, 2011.
Substantially all of the proposed preliminary settlement amount
will be covered by the Company's insurance. However, for the
Company's share of the proposed preliminary settlement not covered
by insurance, the Company recorded an after-tax charge in the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2010 of approximately $0.02 per share.
The Company deposited its uninsured share of the settlement amount
in escrow on February 1, 2011.
If the preliminary settlement is not finally approved or the other
conditions are not met, the Company relates that it will continue
to defend against the lawsuits and believes that it and the other
defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims and allegations contained in the consolidated complaint.
In such a case, the Company would intend to pursue those defenses
vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company
would be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuits
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations and cash flow.
POLO RALPH: Reverses $3.6 Million Settlement Reserves Into Income
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. has reversed $3.6 million of its original
$5 million reserve into income, which reserve was initiated in
relation to a settlement agreement resolving two class action
lawsuits against it, according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Jan. 1, 2011.
On October 11, 2007 and November 2, 2007, two class action
lawsuits were filed by two customers in state court in California
asserting that while they were shopping at certain of the
Company's factory stores in California, the Company allegedly
required them to provide certain personal information at the
point-of-sale in order to complete a credit card purchase. The
plaintiffs purported to represent a class of customers in
California who allegedly were injured by being forced to provide
their address and telephone numbers in order to use their credit
cards to purchase items from the Company's stores, which allegedly
violated Section 1747.08 of California's Song-Beverly Act. The
complaints sought an unspecified amount of statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company subsequently
had the actions moved to the United States District Court for the
Eastern and Central Districts of California. Subsequently, the
parties agreed to settle these claims by agreeing that the Company
would issue $20 merchandise discount coupons with six month
expiration dates to eligible parties and would pay the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees. In connection with this settlement, the Company
recorded a $5 million reserve against its expected loss exposure
during the second quarter of Fiscal 2009. The terms of the
settlement were later approved by the Court. Accordingly, the
coupons were issued in February 2010 and expired on August 16,
2010. Based on the coupon redemption experience, the Company
reversed $1.7 million of its original $5.0 million reserve into
income during Fiscal 2010, and the remaining $1.9 million of
reserves was reversed into income during Fiscal 2011.
PRIDE INT'L: Shareholders File Class Action to Halt Ensco Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers at the Houston-based complex commercial litigation law
firm of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos disclosed that a class-
action lawsuit filed on Feb. 10 on behalf of shareholders in Pride
International Inc. in an effort to stop what the lawsuit alleges
is an unfairly priced drilling sector merger announced with Ensco
plc.
The shareholder class-action lawsuit filed in Harris County court
alleges Pride's directors breached their fiduciary duty to
shareholders by agreeing to a low share price and a restrictive
merger contract that would preclude other offers.
On February 7, Houston-based deepwater drilling company Pride and
British oil rig contractor Ensco jointly announced an agreement
for Ensco to buy Pride for about $7 billion. The transaction is
expected to close as early as the second quarter of 2011. The
lawsuit asks the court to stop the merger to protect shareholders.
AZA partners Demetrios Anaipakos, Amir Alavi and John Zavitsanos
filed the case with David A.P. Brower and Brian C. Kerr of Brower
Piven, A Professional Corporation in New York.
The lawsuit is Cary M. Abrams, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Pride International, Inc., et. al.,
113th District Court, Harris County, No. 2011-08672.
Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos -- http://www.azalaw.com/index.html/
-- is a Houston-based law firm that is home to true courtroom
lawyers with a formidable track record in complex commercial
litigation including energy, intellectual property, securities
fraud, construction, and business dispute cases. AZA is one of
only 32 firms in the U.S. to be recognized as "awesome opponents"
in a nationwide poll of corporate general counsel who were asked
to name the law firms they hope their companies never have to face
in court. In fact, AZA has been hired often by the same companies
the firm has prevailed against at trial.
With offices in New York City and Baltimore County, Maryland,
Brower Piven -- http://www.browerpiven.com/-- focuses on complex
class action cases and other representative litigation. Brower
Piven's experience ranges from representing institutional and
large private investors to small individual investors and retail
consumers, in complex commercial litigation and on corporate
governance matters. Clients and classes represented by attorneys
at Brower Piven have recovered more than $1 billion in past and
pending recoveries.
For more information, please contact Mary Flood at 800-559-4534
or mary@androvett.com
RENTECH INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Stayed in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Rentech,
Inc., which is pending in California, remains stayed to allow
parties to discuss a settlement, according to the Company's
February 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.
Between December 29, 2009 and January 6, 2010, three purported
class action shareholder lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that the Company and the named current and
former directors and officers made false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance in connection with
its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2009. Plaintiffs in the actions purport to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Rentech
securities between May 9, 2008, and December 14, 2009 and seek
unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The
cases were consolidated as Michael Silbergleid v. Rentech, Inc.,
et al. (In re Rentech Securities Litigation), Lead Case No. 2:09-
cv-09495-GHK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), and a lead plaintiff was appointed
on April 5, 2010.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 20, 2010,
and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action on
October 15, 2010. The matters are currently stayed to allow the
parties to discuss settlement. At this time, the Company does not
believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on
the Company.
Rentech, Inc. -- http://www.rentechinc.com/-- is focused on
providing clean energy solutions. The company is focusing on the
deployment of the Rentech Process and the Rentech-SilvaGas biomass
gasification technology (Rentech-SilvaGas Technology) through both
licensing of its technology and development of facilities to
produce synthetic fuels and chemicals, natural gas substitutes,
and electric power from renewable and fossil feedstocks.
SIGMA-ALDRICH: Third Trial in Isotec Explosion Suit Set for March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma-Aldrich Corporation continues to defend itself from a class
action complaint filed in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
according to the Company's February 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.
A class action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of the
Company in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas
related to a 2003 explosion in a column at the Company's Isotec
facility in Miamisburg, Ohio. The case was separated into the
following four phases: phase one -- existence of liability, phase
two -- quantification of any compensatory damages, phase three --
existence of any punitive damages and phase four -- quantification
of any punitive damages. Class certification was granted to
phases one, three and four, but denied to phase two. Compensatory
damages for all plaintiffs must be established before the case can
proceed to the punitive damages phases. The Company has accepted
responsibility for phase one, existence of liability. The case is
currently in the compensatory damages phase, where, because no
class status exists, each plaintiff must individually establish
actual damages. The initial phase two, compensatory damages
trial, for 31 plaintiffs was completed on April 27, 2007 with a
jury verdict establishing actual damages of approximately two
hundred dollars per plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed an appeal
staying further action on the case until the appeal has been
resolved. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the jury's verdict
on compensatory damages. In a decision dated June 9, 2010, the
Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Ohio Court of Appeals and
reinstated the trial court jury instructions and thereby the
verdict rendered by the jury. The second phase two compensatory
trial in January 2011 resulted in a jury verdict of approximately
two hundred and sixty dollars for each of the 28 plaintiffs
involved in that trial. A third trial is scheduled for March of
2011. The Company continues to believe it has substantial legal
defenses to the allegations, which it will vigorously assert.
SMURFIT-STONE: Brower Piven Joins in RockTenn Buyout Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven on February 10 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware on behalf of all shareholders of Smurfit-Stone
Container Corporation.
The complaint alleges violations of state law by the Board of
Directors of Smurfit-Stone relating to the proposed acquisition of
the company by RockTenn. The complaint alleges that Smurfit-
Stone's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize shareholder value, among other things.
On January 23, 2011, the complaint states, Smurfit-Stone and
RockTenn announced that they entered into a definitive agreement
for Smurfit-Stone to be acquired by RockTenn in a transaction
valued at approximately $3.5 billion. The complaint alleges that
under the terms of the agreement, Smurfit-Stone shareholders will
receive $35 per share -- consisting of 50% cash and 50% RockTenn
stock (RockTenn will pay 0.30605 shares of its own stock, plus
$17.50 in cash, for each share of Smurfit-Stone). Although
RockTenn's acquisition price represents approximately a 27%
premium over Smurfit-Stone's closing share price on January 21,
2011, the complaint alleges that the consideration is, in fact,
comparatively low. The complaint alleges that analysts have
asserted that Smurfit-Stone "sold-out too early," and that they
are "definitely leaving money on the table here." The complaint
further alleges that the defendants failed to negotiate any
protection against the decline in the RockTenn stock component of
consideration offered to shareholders in the proposed transaction,
or even the right to terminate the proposed transaction in the
event RockTenn stock trades below a certain level. In addition to
the inadequacy of the consideration offered to Smurfit-Stone
shareholders, the complaint alleges that the process that led to
the proposed transaction suffers from disabling conflicts of
interest. The complaint alleges that the sale of Smurfit-Stone
just seven months after emerging from bankruptcy is conveniently
timed to create a windfall for certain individual defendants and
other company insiders. For example, including stock and options
that will vest automatically with the sale of the company, the
complaint alleges defendant/Smurfit-Stone CEO Patrick Moore will
walk away with total gains of $59.5 million with the consummation
of the proposed transaction.
If you are a current owner of shares of Smurfit-Stone, you may
obtain additional information about this lawsuit by contacting
Brower Piven at:
BROWER PIVEN
1925 Old Valley Road
Stevenson, Maryland 21153
Telephone: 410-415-6616
E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/
Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases of over 60 years. If you choose
to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the
class.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Final Hearing on "DivX" Settlement Set April 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final hearing on Sonic Solutions' settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated shareholder litigation involving DivX, Inc., and its
officers is scheduled for April 1, 2011, according to the
Company's Feb. 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.
On October 7, 2010, the Company completed the acquisition by
merger of DivX.
In connection with acquisition of DivX, two sets of shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed against DivX, members of the DivX
board of directors, the Company, Siracusa Merger Corporation, and
Siracusa Merger LLC, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the
DivX board of directors in connection with the merger. The first
set of lawsuits, captioned Gahlen v. DivX, Inc. et al., and Pared
v. DivX, Inc. et al., were filed in Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, and were consolidated as In re
DivX, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The second set of lawsuits,
captioned Chropufka v. DivX, Inc. et al. (C.A. No. 5643-CC), and
Willis v. DivX, Inc. et al. (C.A. No. 5647-CC), were filed in
Delaware Chancery Court, and were consolidated as In re DivX, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation (Consolidated C.A. No. 5463-CC). The
lawsuits, brought by individual DivX stockholders purportedly on
behalf of a class of DivX stockholders, sought, among other
things, to enjoin defendants from completing the merger pursuant
to the terms of the merger agreement. As previously reported, on
August 22, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle all of these lawsuits. After first memorializing the
terms of the agreement in a memorandum of understanding, dated
August 31, 2010, the parties executed a formal Stipulation of
Settlement on December 29, 2010.
On January 21, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and set April 1, 2011, as the hearing date for
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement. The
parties have thus far been unable to agree on the fees payable to
plaintiffs' counsel and, pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement, plaintiffs will file a fee application with the court
if an agreement is not reached.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Awaits Court Approval of Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions is awaiting court approval of its settlement of
class action lawsuits relating to its merger with Rovi
Corporation, according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2010.
On December 22, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization with Rovi, and Rovi's wholly
owned subsidiary, Sparta Acquisition Sub, Inc..
In connection with the merger of Rovi and the Company, on
January 3, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Vassil
Vassilev v. Sonic Solutions, et al. was filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Marin by an individual purporting
to be a shareholder of Sonic Solutions against Sonic, the members
of its board of directors, Rovi and Sparta Acquisition Sub. This
lawsuit alleged that the members of Sonic's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by, inter
alia, failing to maximize shareholder value and by approving the
merger transaction via an unfair process, and further alleged that
Rovi and Sparta Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties, and sought to enjoin the acquisition of Sonic by
Rovi, rescission of the transaction in the event it is
consummated, imposition of a constructive trust, and monetary
damages, fees and costs in an unspecified amount. Thereafter, on
January 10, 14 and 18, 2011, three substantially similar putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the same court against the
same defendants, entitled Matthew Barnes v. Habinger [sic] et al.,
Mark Chropufka v. Sonic Solutions, et al. and Diana Willis v.
Sonic Solutions, et al. On January 21, 2011, plaintiff Mark
Chropufka filed an amended class action complaint, which all
plaintiffs then designated as the operative complaint, and which
adds allegations of omissions in the Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation
Statement filed by the Company on January 14, 2011.
On January 27, 2011, these parties submitted a stipulation and
proposed order consolidating all lawsuits filed in connection with
the proposed merger, which order was signed by the Court on
January 28, 2011. On January 25, 2011, another substantially
similar putative class action lawsuit was filed in the same court
against the same defendants, entitled Joann Thompson v. Sonic
Solutions, et al. On January 28, 2011, the parties to the
Consolidated Action reached an agreement in principle to settle,
and on January 31, 2011, they entered into a memorandum of
understanding setting forth this agreement in principle. The
proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval following
notice to the class and a hearing, disposes of all causes of
action asserted in the Consolidated Action and in Thompson v.
Sonic Solutions, et. al., on behalf of all class members who do
not elect to opt out of the settlement. Class members, who elect
to opt out, if any, may continue to pursue causes of action
against the defendants. On February 4, 2011, Thompson applied to
the court for an order temporarily restraining Rovi from accepting
tendered shares on the ground that the Offer and Merger allegedly
violate a provision of the California Corporation Code. The Court
denied the application that same day.
SPECIALTY'S CAFE: Sued for Non-Payment of Minimum Wage & Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Covillo, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Specialty's Cafe and Bakery, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00594 (N.D. Calif. February 9, 2011), accuses the
foodservice company of non-payment of the minimum wage and
overtime compensation, and other violations of the California
Labor Code.
Ms. Covillo worked as a team lead at a Specialty's store located
in the City of San Francisco between July 2006 and September 2007.
Her tasks included baking, customer service, food preparation,
assistance with payroll and timecards, and contact with vendors.
Ms. Covillo alleges that to date, she has not been compensated all
of her earned wages.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90038
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
- and -
David S. Harris, Esq.
NORTH BAY LAW GROUP
116 E. Blithedale Avenue, Suite 2
Mill Valley, CA 94941-2024
Telephone: (415) 388-8788
E-mail: dsh@northbaylawgroup.com
- and -
James D. Rush, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. RUSH, APC
7665 Redwood Boulevard, Suite 200
Novato, CA 94945
Telephone: (415) 897-4801
E-mail: jr@rushlawoffices.com
STATE STREET: Arkansas Public Pension Fund Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannette Neumann and Carrick Mollenkamp, writing for The Wall
Street Journal, report that an Arkansas public pension fund filed
a lawsuit against State Street Corp., expanding the investigation
into whether banks overcharged public pension funds by tens of
millions of dollars for foreign-exchange transactions.
The suit, which was filed on Feb. 10 in federal court in
Massachusetts and which seeks class-action status, alleges that
Boston-based State Street for more than a decade violated state
law by overcharging many customers for currency trades.
In a statement, State Street said the firm is "firmly committed to
providing its clients with quality service and transparency in
meeting their FX needs. We will vigorously defend the allegations
made in the complaint and we stand by our business practices."
The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System oversees around $11 billion
in assets for more than 115,000 retired and active teachers. The
suit seeks class-action status on behalf of all "similarly
affected" customers of State Street, including public and private
pension funds, mutual funds and endowments. Excluded are public
pension funds that have already been part of cases against the
firm under whistleblower laws or have cases that will be unsealed
during the course of the Arkansas litigation.
Thirty states allow whistleblowers to collect as much as 15% to
30% of any government recovery in cases in which they assist.
Arkansas has no such statute.
While Arkansas isn't a whistleblower state, the pension fund suing
State Street is being represented by a Boston law firm-Thornton &
Naumes LLP-which also is a law firm leading the whistleblower
cases in California and Virginia.
State Street is the custody bank for more than 40% of U.S. public
pension funds, according to the Arkansas lawsuit. The suit
alleges that State Street's "unfair and deceptive FX practices"
have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in profits annually
for the firm.
Custody, or trust, banks historically have acted as custodian for
investment firms' securities while handling mundane back-office
administrative work.
These banks, in addition to executing currency transactions for
institutional investors, also help hedge funds and other
sophisticated money managers keep track of trades.
In suing State Street, the Arkansas fund joins a handful of state
prosecutors that are looking into whether certain custody banks
charged state pension funds the most expensive foreign-exchange
price during the day when a trade took place, rather than the rate
the bank paid, and when currencies were sold, paid them the lowest
price of the day.
A lawsuit by the California attorney general against State Street
was unsealed in October 2009, causing many states to take notice.
The Arkansas fund has been investigating foreign-exchange pricing
since the fall of 2009, according to minutes of the fund's Feb. 7
board meeting. Board minutes said the Arkansas fund's staff,
attorneys and experts hired by the attorneys had been attempting
to obtain information from State Street concerning foreign-
exchange trades and costs. The minutes said "receipt of
information from State Street has been delayed several times."
In addition to the California suit, Virginia joined a suit against
Bank of New York Mellon Corp., and Florida said last week it will
join a suit against BNY Mellon. State Street and BNY Mellon have
denied the claims and say they will fight the lawsuits.
Also, the office of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood last
month requested currency-transaction records for the past decade
from the state's pension system, said Pat Robertson, executive
director of the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System,
in an interview this week.
Last year, a consultant for the Mississippi fund completed an
analysis of all of its foreign-exchange transactions in 2009, said
Lorrie Tingle, the fund's chief investment officer . The
consultant, Russell Investments of Seattle, Wash., approached the
fund last year about conducting the audit, Ms. Tingle said.
Russell didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Ms. Robertson declined to comment on the conclusions of the audit.
BNY Mellon is the custody bank for the state's pension system,
which has about $20 billion in assets. The bank declined to
comment about the Mississippi fund. Mr. Hood's office confirmed
the request for data but declined further comment.
STERIS CORP: Settles With SYSTEM 1 Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------
Steris Corporation entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in the action titled Physicians of Winter Haven LLC
d/b/a Day Surgery Center v. STERIS Corp., Case No. 1:1-cv-00264-
CAB (N.D. Ohio), according to the Company's February 9, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2010.
On February 5, 2010, a complaint was filed by a Customer that
claims to have purchased two SYSTEM 1 devices from STERIS. The
complaint alleges statutory violations, breaches of various
warranties, negligence, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, and other legal and
equitable relief including, without limitation, attorneys' fees
and an order requiring STERIS to replace, recall or adequately
repair the product and/or to take appropriate regulatory action.
On February 7, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement in which the Company agreed, among other things, to
provide various categories of economic relief for members of the
settlement class and not object to plaintiff's counsel's
application to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses up to a
specified amount. Both certification of a settlement class and
preliminary and final approval of the settlement require approval
of the court and satisfaction of certain other conditions. There
is no assurance that the court will take such actions, that such
conditions will be satisfied, or that this matter will be
resolved, or be resolved consistent with the terms and conditions
of such settlement agreement.
During the third quarter of fiscal 2011, the Company recorded in
operating expenses a pre-tax charge of approximately $19,796,000
related to the proposed settlement of these proceedings. The
assumptions regarding the amount of this charge include, among
others, the portion of class members participating in the
settlement and their choice of the categories of economic relief
available for such members. These assumptions may be incorrect and
the costs of the settlement may be higher or lower than the charge
recorded. The actual settlement could be as low as $7,000,000 and
as high as $22,000,000 depending on the options selected by the
class members.
This putative class action or other civil, criminal, regulatory or
other proceedings involving the Company's SYSTEM 1, SYSTEM 1E, EPS
System, or other products or services could possibly result in
judgments, settlements or administrative or judicial decrees
requiring the Company, among other actions, to pay damages or
fines or effect recalls, or be subject to other governmental,
Customer or other third party claims or remedies, which could
materially affect the Company's business, performance, prospects,
value, financial condition, and results of operations.
SUMMER INFANT: Recalls 1.7 Million Video Baby Monitors
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Summer Infant Inc., of Woonsocket, R.I., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.7 million video baby monitors with electrical
cords. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.
The cords can present a strangulation hazard to infants and
toddlers if placed too close to a crib. Because of this serious
strangulation risk, parents and caregivers should never place
these and other corded cameras within three feet of a crib.
Over the past year CPSC and the firm have received reports of two
strangulation deaths of infants with the electrical cords of
Summer Infant video baby monitors. In March 2010 a 10-month old
girl from Washington, D.C. strangled in her crib in the electrical
cord of a Summer Infant video monitor. The monitor camera had
been placed on top of the crib rail.
In November 2010 CPSC received a report of a six-month old boy
from Conway, S.C., who strangled in the electrical cord of a baby
monitor placed on the changing table attached to the crib. In
January 2011 CPSC learned the product involved was a Summer Infant
video baby monitor.
CPSC and the firm are also aware of a near strangulation incident
in which a 20-month old boy from Pittsburg, Pa. was found in his
crib with the camera cord wrapped around his neck. The Summer
Infant monitor camera was mounted on the wall, but the child was
still able to reach the cord. He was freed from the cord without
serious injury.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11127.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
major retailers, mass merchandisers, and juvenile products stores
nationwide for between $60 and $300. They were sold in more than
40 different models, including handheld, digital, and color video
monitors. All video monitors include both the camera (placed in
the baby's room) and the hand held device (some models have two
hand-held devices) that enable the caregiver to see and/or hear
the baby from a specific distance. The brand "Summer" is found on
the product.
CPSC and Summer Infant urge parents to immediately check the
location of the video monitors, including cameras mounted on the
wall, and all electric cords to make sure the cords are out of
arm's reach of their child. Consumers should contact Summer
Infant toll-free at (800) 426-8627 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.summerinfant.com/Home/Product-Recall.aspx/to
receive a new permanent electric cord warning label about the
strangulation risk and revised instructions about how to safely
mount camera and keep cords out of child's reach.
SUMMER INFANT: Recalls 58,000 Rechargeable Batteries
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Summer Infant, of Woonsocket, R.I., announced a voluntary recall
of about 58,000 rechargeable batteries sold with certain Slim and
Secure(TM) Video Monitors. Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
The battery in the handheld video monitor can overheat and
rupture, posing a burn hazard to consumers.
Summer Infant has received five reports of ruptured batteries,
including three incidents of minor property damage. No injuries
were reported.
The recall involves Summer Infant Slim and Secure handheld color
video monitors with unmarked, MP and BK rechargeable batteries.
The Video Monitor is sold in either silver and white, model
#02800; or pink and white, model #02805. It has receiver and
camera components. The receiver is approximately 4 1/4" tall and
2 1/2" wide with a 2.5" LCD screen with the "Summer" logo printed
in white on the bottom front. The camera is silver and white.
Both the video monitor and receiver components come with A/C
adapters but only the receiver unit contains a rechargeable
battery. The batteries are unmarked or marked with letters MP or
BK on the lower right corner of the battery. Batteries that are
marked TCL are not included in this recall. Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11126.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Babies R Us from September 2009 to May 2010 for
about $200.
Consumers should immediately stop using the video baby monitors
with the recalled batteries and contact Summer Infant to receive a
postage paid envelope to return the defective battery in exchange
for a free replacement battery. The monitor can continue to be
used on AC power with power cord. For additional information,
contact Summer Infant between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday at (800) 426-8627, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.summerinfant.com/
TERMINIX INT'L: Sued in Calif. for Falsifying Inspection Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that an unhappy customer filed a
federal class action accusing Terminix of defrauding customers by
falsifying inspection reports, particularly on houses with stucco.
A copy of the Complaint in Eshagh v. The Terminix International
Company L.P., et al., Case No. 11-at-00070 (E.D. Calif.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/10/Terminix.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
H. Tim Hoffman, Esq.
Arthur W. Lazear, Esq.
HOFFMAN & LAZEAR
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 763-5700
E-mail: hth@hoffmanandlazear.com
awl@hoffmanandlazear.com
- and -
Thomas F. Campbell, Esq.
D. Keiron McGowin, Esq.
CAMPBELL LAW
One Chase Corporate Drive, Suite 180
Birmingham, AL 35244
Telephone: (205) 278-6650
E-mail: tcampbell@campbelllitigation.com
kmcgowin@campbelllitigation.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: 2013 Trial Set for Acceleration Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Tierney, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a
federal court handling class-action lawsuits against Toyota Motor
Corp. related to alleged unintended acceleration of Toyota
vehicles has asked the automaker and plaintiffs to choose a
handful of "bellwether cases" to be tried in 2013.
"The court announced its intent to hold the first trial in this
proceeding in the first quarter of 2013 and the second trial in
the second quarter of 2013," Judge James Selna of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California said in an
order.
More than 100 class-action and individual lawsuits alleging
economic loss or personal injury have been consolidated in two
federal cases.
The court said it had not decided whether one of the bellwether
cases going to trial would be for economic-loss claims for
diminished value of Toyota vehicles.
"The bellwether cases would be representative of the cases against
Toyota," said Nicholas Wittner, a professor at Michigan State
University's College of Law.
"They could be viewed as precedents for the other cases,"
including potential settlement values, he said. In addition to
the big cases in California, Toyota also faces numerous individual
lawsuits.
Last week, the U.S. Transportation Department said there was no
evidence that Toyota's electronics could cause its vehicles to
accelerate uncontrollably. It attributed the problems reported to
driver error or mechanical issues that have been the subject of
recalls.
Some legal experts say the Transportation Department's conclusion
after a 10-month investigation will help Toyota in court. But
others said it will have limited impact on the suits against the
automaker, which has paid record fines for failing to issue
recalls promptly.
Toyota has recalled more than 10 million vehicles since the fall
of 2009, in many cases to fix pedals that can stick or get
entrapped by mats or other materials.
In the United States, most product liability cases are settled
before they go to trial, Mr. Wittner said.
UNITED STATES: Feb. 16 Meeting Set for Indian Trust Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minot Daily News reports that after 14 years, there is a proposed
settlement in the Cobell Indian trust settlement, the class action
lawsuit against the federal government that claims mismanagement
of Individual Indian Monies funds held by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
The class action lawsuit settlement claims that the federal
government violated its duties by mismanaging trust accounts and
individual Indian trust lands.
A meeting to discuss the $3.4 billion Indian trust settlement will
be held on Feb. 16 at 4 p.m. in the Event Center at the 4 Bears
Casino & Lodge west of New Town.
The meeting is for current or former IIM account holders, owners
of land in trust or restricted status, or their heirs.
A deadline of April 20 has been set to act on some of these
rights.
The settlement includes Indians who had an IIM account anytime
from about 1985 to Sept. 30, 2009, who had an individual interest
in trust land as of Sept. 30, 2009, or who are heirs to deceased
IIM account holders or owners of land held in trust or restricted
status.
The settlement provides a $1.5 billion fund to pay those included
in the settlement, $1.9 billion to buy small interests in trust
or restricted land to benefit Indian communities and up to
$60 million to fund scholarships for Indian youth.
Most people included in the settlement will get at least $1,500.
Others may receive more or less based on the terms of the
settlement. Those who are currently receiving an IIM account
statement do not have to do anything to get a payment.
Those who are not currently receiving an IIM account statement and
believe they are included in the settlement, can call 1-800-961-
6109 or visit http://www.IndianTrust.com/
VANGUARD HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Maderazo" Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., discloses in its Feb. 9, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010, that it continues to defend the
matter Maderazo, et al., v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00535.
On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filed
in San Antonio, Texas against the Company's Baptist Health System
subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospital
systems in San Antonio. In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that
the three hospital system defendants conspired with each other and
with other unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress the
compensation levels of registered nurses employed at the
conspiring hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging in
certain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws. The
complaint alleges two separate claims. The first count asserts
that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain
competition, by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation. The
second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems also
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in wage,
salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having the
effect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or limiting
competition for nurses based on their compensation. The class on
whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is alleged to
comprise all registered nurses employed by the defendant hospitals
since June 20, 2002. The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling
of this damage amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and
attorneys fees. From 2006 through April 2008 the Company and the
plaintiffs worked on producing documents to each other relating
to, and supplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, the
issue of whether the court will certify a class in this suit. In
April 2008 the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company believes
that the allegations contained within this putative class action
suit are without merit, and have vigorously worked to defeat class
certification. If a class is certified, the Company will continue
to defend vigorously against the litigation.
On the same date in 2006 that this suit was filed against the
Company in federal district court in San Antonio, the same
attorneys filed three other substantially similar putative class
action lawsuits in federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois,
Albany, New York and Memphis, Tennessee against some of the
hospitals in those cities (none of such hospitals being owned by
the Company). The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in all
four of these cases said in June 2006 that they may file similar
complaints in other jurisdictions and in December 2006 they
brought a substantially similar class action lawsuit against eight
hospitals or hospital systems in the Detroit, Michigan
metropolitan area, one of which systems is The Detroit Medical
Center, which the Company acquired on January 1, 2011. Since
representatives of the Service Employees International Union
joined plaintiffs' attorneys in announcing the filing of all four
complaints on June 20, 2006, and as has been reported in the
media, the Company believes that SEIU's involvement in these
actions appears to be part of a corporate campaign to attempt to
organize nurses in these cities, including San Antonio. The nurses
in the Company's hospitals in San Antonio are currently not
members of any union. Of the four other similar cases filed in
2006, only the Chicago case has been concluded, following the
court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. In the
suit in Detroit, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification and Detroit Medical Center has filed a motion for
summary judgment and both motions are currently pending before the
trial judge. The other two suits have progressed at somewhat
different paces and remain pending. To date, in all five suits,
the plaintiffs have yet to persuade any court to certify a class
of registered nurses as alleged in their complaints. The Company
believes that the allegations in the Detroit suit are also without
merit and the Company intends to continue to defend against this
suit as well as its similar suit in San Antonio.
If the plaintiffs in the San Antonio and the Detroit suits (1) are
successful in obtaining class certification and (2) are able to
prove substantial damages which are then trebled under Section 1
of the Sherman Act, such a result could materially affect
Vanguard's business, financial condition or results of operations.
However, in the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of
this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations.
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.vanguardhealth.com/--
owns and operates 17 acute care hospitals and complementary
facilities and services in Chicago, Illinois; Phoenix, Arizona;
San Antonio, Texas; and Massachusetts. Vanguard's strategy is to
develop locally branded, comprehensive healthcare delivery
networks in urban markets. Vanguard will pursue acquisitions
where there are opportunities to partner with leading delivery
systems in new urban markets or to increase its presence in
existing markets. Upon acquiring a facility or network of
facilities, Vanguard implements strategic and operational
improvement initiatives including expanding services,
strengthening relationships with physicians and managed care
organizations, recruiting new physicians and upgrading information
systems and other capital equipment. These strategies improve
quality and network coverage in a cost effective and accessible
manner for the communities Vanguard serves.
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Still Defends Merix-Related Suit in Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------
ViaSystems Group, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit
in Oregon related to the Company's merger agreement with Merix
Corporation after its motion to dismiss the case was denied,
according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.
On October 13, 2009 and November 5, 2009, respectively, Asbestos
Workers Pension Fund and W. Donald Wybert, both former Merix
shareholders, filed putative class action complaints in Oregon
state court (Multnomah County), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Merix, the members of its board
of directors and ViaSystems. The complaints, which were
substantively identical and sought to enjoin the Merix
Acquisition, alleged, among other things, that Merix' directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Merix' shareholders by
attempting to sell Merix to ViaSystems for an inadequate price and
that ViaSystems aided and abetted those breaches.
On November 23, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases. On or about December 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which largely
mirrored the original complaints, but also added Maple Acquisition
Corp. -- the merger vehicle -- as a defendant and alleged that
Merix' proxy statement for the Merix Acquisition was materially
deficient.
On January 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the Merix Acquisition, scheduled to take place
on February 8, 2010. On January 29, 2010, the defendants filed
oppositions to plaintiffs' motion, and, on February 2, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their reply. On February 5, 2010, following oral
arguments, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion. The Merix
Acquisition was consummated on February 16, 2010.
After the Court denied plaintiff's motion to enjoin the
transaction, plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint dated
April 19, 2010 naming only Merix Corporation's former board
members as defendants. All defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on July 8, 2010. On October 29, 2010, the court
heard arguments on the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the court
denied the Defendant's motion. The Defendants are insured by
Merix Corporation's Directors and Officers Liability Insurance
coverage. The Company has exhausted the self insured retention of
the D&O Insurance and therefore, anticipates any expenses or
potential damages should be covered by the D&O Insurance.
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Obtains Court Approval of Merix Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ViaSystems Group, Inc., has obtained court approval of a
settlement resolving a consolidated class action filed against
Merix Corporation, according to the Company's Feb. 9, 2011, Form
10-K filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.
On February 16, 2010, the Company acquired Merix Corporation in a
transaction pursuant to which Merix became a wholly owned
subsidiary of ViaSystems.
Four purported class action complaints were filed against Merix
and certain of its executive officers and directors on June 17,
2004, June 24, 2004 and July 9, 2004. The complaints were
consolidated in a single action entitled In re Merix Corporation
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 04-826-MO, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon. After the court
granted Merix' motion to dismiss without prejudice, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint. That complaint alleged that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by making certain
inaccurate and misleading statements in the prospectus used in
connection with the January 2004 public offering of approximately
$103.4 million of Merix' common stock. In September 2006, the
Court dismissed that complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs
appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2008,
the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the second amended
complaint. Merix sought rehearing which was denied and rehearing
en banc was also denied. Merix obtained a stay of the mandate
from the Ninth Circuit and filed a certiorari petition with the
U.S. Supreme Court on September 22, 2008. On December 15, 2008,
the U.S. Supreme Court denied the certiorari petition and the case
was remanded back to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon. On May 15, 2009, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class
of all investors who purchased in the public offering and who were
damaged thereby. On November 5, 2009, the court partially granted
the certification motion and certified a class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Merix
common stock from an underwriter directly pursuant to Merix's
January 29, 2004 public offering, who held the stock through
May 13, 2004, and who were damaged thereby. A settlement of this
case was approved by the court in January 2011. The settlement
was completely funded by insurance.
WESCO FIN'L: Board Sued Over Berkshire Takeover
-----------------------------------------------
Joel Krieger, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Wesco Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 6176-
(Del. Ch. Ct. February 8, 2011), accuses the members of Wesco's
Board of Directors of breaching its fiduciary duties owed to the
Company's minority shareholders in connection with the proposed
sale to defendant and 80% majority shareholder, Berkshire
Hathaway, Inc., of the remaining 19.9% of the shares of Wesco's
common stock that Berkshire does not presently own, in exchange
for cash or shares of Berkshire Hathaway Class B common stock.
Based on the estimated shareholders' equity of Wesco as of
January 31, 2011, the proposed transaction values the 19.9% of
Wesco not owned by Berkshire at approximately $547.6 million.
The Special Committee of "purportedly" independent directors
appointed to evaluate Berkshire's proposal and Wesco's Board have
agreed to the proposed transaction. The closing is expected to
occur before the end of the second quarter of 2011.
Wesco, together with its subsidiaries, engages in insurance,
furniture rental, and steel service center businesses in the
United States. Berkshire is a holding company owning subsidiaries
engaged in a number of diverse business activities, including
property and casualty insurance and reinsurance, utilities and
energy, finance, manufacturing, service and retailing.
Mr. Krieger, a shareholder of Wesco, alleges that the proposed
transaction is the product of a flawed process designed to sell
Wesco to Berkshire on terms detrimental to the public shareholders
of Wesco. Mr. Krieger adds that the proposed transaction not only
offers "no premium to Wesco's minority shareholders for their
shares, but the offer price even with continued improved Company
earnings, will still reflect a substantial discount to Wesco's
52-week high of $416 per share."
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Strum, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 482-3182
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
WHITNEY HOLDING: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Hancock Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Mowbray, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that
Whitney Holding Corp. shareholders have filed a class action
lawsuit in federal court seeking to block the bank's merger with
Hancock Holding Co., saying that the directors of the New Orleans
bank may not have acted in shareholders' best interests.
The suit was filed on Feb. 7 by a non-Louisiana company called
Realistic Partners against Whitney, its board members and Hancock.
The case has been assigned to Judge Jay Zainey.
Whitney, the parent company of Whitney National Bank, announced
Dec. 22 that it was merging with Hancock, a Mississippi company
that owns Hancock Bank. According to U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, Whitney spurned another suitor, described as
Company A in the filings but widely believed to be IberiaBank,
after three months of talks in favor of a last-minute deal with
Hancock.
In the suit, Realistic Partners says that the defendants have
provided "materially incomplete" information to Whitney
shareholders, preventing them from making an informed decision
about the deal. It also charges that Whitney Chairman and Chief
Executive John Hope "sought to protect and advance his own
interests at the expense of Whitney's public shareholders," and
that Whitney directors breached their fiduciary duty to
shareholders because the process they used to vet potential
suitors was flawed.
"It doesn't appear that the decision was in the best interests of
the shareholders. The shareholders would have done better, it
appears, with the Iberia offer," said Randy Smith, attorney for
Realistic Partners. "It raises the question of to what extent it
was based on preference for Hancock, or animus toward Iberia, and
to what extent it was based on individual benefits to executives
and directors, as opposed to what's best for the shareholders. I
don't think we know the full story at this point."
Another prospective class action was brought by shareholder Norman
de Lapouyade in Orleans Parish Civil District Court on Jan. 7, on
general allegations that the merger should be enjoined because the
deal was arrived at through an "unfair process" that garnered an
"unfair price."
If either suit gains steam, it could derail the merger timeline.
Hancock chief executive Carl Chaney said in an interview last
month that both Whitney and Hancock hoped to put the merger to a
shareholder vote at the end of March, so that the deal could close
April 30.
Whitney Investor Relations Manager and Senior Vice President
Trisha Carlson said that Whitney doesn't comment on pending legal
matters. Paul Guichet, vice president of investor relations at
Hancock, said he couldn't comment because he hadn't read the suit.
The Realistic Partners suit questions whether Whitney needed to
merge at all; Whitney executives had told shareholders that the
bank will return to profitability during the first quarter of
2011.
The day the deal was announced, several Wall Street analysts said
they were puzzled as to why the deal was occurring now, given that
Whitney claimed it was poised to return to profitability
imminently and the bank had until the end of 2013 to worry about
the interest rates on the TARP money rising from 5% to 9%. In
follow-up interviews, Whitney affirmed that nothing had changed
about its view of the future.
Merging with another bank -- whether Hancock or Company A -- means
that Whitney executives would be able to collect lucrative
severance packages as long as the acquiring company pays back
Whitney's $300 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program loans to
the federal government.
Selling the company just before Whitney returns to profitability,
the suit contends, would allow Hancock to buy the company on the
cheap, with share prices still below their historic levels before
the full value of the company can be realized.
Whitney executives also failed to engage in a process that
adequately determined what, if any, alternatives existed to
selling the company, according to the shareholder lawsuit. The
board didn't engage in a market check, didn't content potential
purchasers, didn't attempt to hold an auction, and didn't attempt
to negotiate a "go-shop" provision in the sale agreement. In
fact, the board did the opposite, and agreed to pay Hancock fees
if the deal didn't work out.
If it was in their best interests to sell the company, Whitney
shareholders don't have the necessary information to determine
whether the board made the best deal in choosing Hancock over
Company A.
The shareholder suit says that Whitney dragged its feet in
exploring negotiations with Company A during fall 2010, in
contrast with the rush to the altar with Hancock even though
Company A offered a higher price.
"Upon information and belief, the Board had personal animus for
the officers and/or directors of Company A, which caused the Board
to favor Hancock contrary to the interests of the shareholders,"
the suit reads.
WVS FINANCIAL CORP: Subsidiary Reaches Deal to Settle Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
West View Savings Bank, a subsidiary of WVS Financial Corp.,
entered into an agreement to settle a lawsuit filed by Matthew
Dragotta, according to the Company's February 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2010.
Matthew Dragotta filed the lawsuit against West View Savings Bank
alleging that West View Savings Bank failed to comply with the
notification requirements of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1693 et. Seq. before a bank can impose a
transaction fee for the use of an automated teller machine. On
August 24, 2009 U.S. District Judge, Terrance P. McVerry issued an
order granting the Bank's motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. On
September 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
Reconsideration of Judge McVerry's order granting the Bank's
motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. On October 16, 2009, Judge McVerry
denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
On November 4, 2009, the Plaintiff provided a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appealing
Judge McVerry's orders of September 3 and October 16, 2009. On
September 28, 2010 the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit vacated Judge McVerry's orders and remanded the case
to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings.
During the quarter ended December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and the
Savings Bank agreed to settle this lawsuit. The settlement will
be structured as a class action. In connection with the
settlement, the Savings Bank agreed to refund ATM fees collected
and to pay a negotiated amount of the Plaintiff's attorney's fees
and litigation costs. The Savings Bank decided to settle this
lawsuit in order to avoid the costs of protracted litigation. In
connection with the settlement, the Savings Bank recorded a non-
recurring charge of $81,000.
* Dallas Lawyer Mulls Overbooking Class Action v. Hotel Chains
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that Dallas
plaintiffs lawyer Allen Stewart says he has fallen victim to hotel
overbooking at least a dozen times. Now he's collecting stories
of similar experiences in hopes of filing a future class action
naming several hotel chains.
Mr. Stewart contends a hotel reservation that is prepaid or
guaranteed with a credit card is an enforceable contract," the New
York Times reports. According to Mr. Stewart's Web site, he's
investigating overbookings at more than a dozen hotel chains and
would like to hear from dissatisfied consumers.
Hotels say they are in the hospitality business, Mr. Stewart told
the Times, but when they turn away guests with guaranteed
reservations "that's not hospitality, that's just good old-
fashioned lying."
*********
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 * * *