/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110324.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, March 24, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 59
Headlines
ALITALIA AIRLINES: Sued Over Failure to Compensate for Delays
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
BIG O TIRES: Sued in Calif. Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Continues to Defend Certified Wage & Hour Suit
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Continues to Defend Class Actions in Los Angeles
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Awaits Court Okay of Managers' Suit Settlement
CELERA CORP: Continues to Defend Against "Washtenaw" Suit
CHEMUNG FINANCIAL: Allan Birkett Drops Stockholder Class Suit
CLAIMS FUNDING: Class Action Fund Agreement Gets Conditional OK
CLARCOR INC: "Filter" Suits in U.S. and Canada Still Pending
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Awaits Court Approval of Suits Settlement
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Suit Settlement Appeal
DUOYUAN PRINTING: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
FEDEX CORP: To Appeal Verdict Reversal to Washington Supreme Court
FEDEX CORP: "Taylor" Wage & Hour Suit Scheduled for Trial in July
FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Defend "Bibo" Wage & Hour Suit
FEDEX CORP: 20 of 28 FedEx Ground Summary Judgment Motions Granted
FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Continues to Defend "Tidd" Suit
FEDEX CORP: Unit Continues to Defend "Rascon" Suit in Colorado
KMART CORP: Non-Certification of "Juarez" Class Suit Upheld
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces Class Action Over Synthetic CDO Trades
LIFE PARTNERS: Levi & Korsinsky Looks Into Securities Violations
LIMITED BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss IBEW Suit Remains Pending
MASSEY ENERGY: "Misinformation" Argued in Class Action Trial
MGM RESORTS: Seeks Dismissal of Two Shareholder Class Actions
MIAMI, FL: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling Over Arbitration Award
MISSISSIPPI: Redistricting Plan Unconstitutional, Suit Claims
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Bernzott Opt-Outs Cannot Rejoin Class Suit
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Files Response to Lockout Class Action
NORTHLAND PROPERTIES: Treatment to Temporary Workers Improved
OKLAHOMA: Foster Care Class Action Trial Set to Begin in October
OLDHAM NAIDOO: Judge to Rule on Bushfire Class Action Next Month
ONLINE TRAVEL SITES: Suit Over Taxes Gains Class-Action Status
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Class Certification of "Sher" Suit Vacated
SANDHURST TRUSTEES: To File Proposed Class Action Settlement
SAKS INC: Continues to Defend Amended Class Action Complaint
SECURITIES AMERICA: Investors Should Consider Legal Options
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856: Appeals Court Affirms Class Suit Dismissal
TIGRENT INC: Enters Into Settlement of Class Suit in Florida
TRIAD GUARANTY: Amends Complaint Against AHM in Delaware
U.S. INSURERS: Agree to Terms of Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: Lawyers Want Legal Fee in Keepseagle Suit Capped
VESTAS WIND: Pension Fund Files Class Action in the U.S.
XFONE INC: Israel Court to Hear Class Action Request on April 17
*********
ALITALIA AIRLINES: Sued Over Failure to Compensate for Delays
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Alitalia Airlines didn't pay passengers whose flights were
canceled or delayed by 3 hours or more, to or from the European
Union, as required.
A copy of the Complaint in Gurevich, et al. v. Compagnia Areas
Italiana, SPA, Case No. 11-cv-_____ (N.D. Ill.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/21/Alitalia.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
- and -
Hank Bates, Esq.
CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES BOZEMAN & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
- and -
Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, Esq.
GOROKHOVSKY LAW OFFICE, LLC
6045 North Green Bay Avenue, Suite 2A
Glendale, WI 53209
Telephone: (414) 218-1870
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews reports that Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, a U.S.
subsidiary of German health care and materials company Bayer AG,
is getting ready to fight a gender discrimination lawsuit which is
claiming damages worth $100 million. The class action lawsuit is
filed by law firm of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, in the U.S.
District Court for New Jersey, citing instances of illegal gender
discrimination.
The six Class Representatives Victoria Barghout, Jennifer
Christiansen, Barbara Feringa, Jennifer Musumeci, Laura Reilly,
and Karen Salomon filed the complaint on behalf of themselves and
a class of female employees in the U.S. under Title VII of the
1964 Civil Rights Act and New Jersey law.
The lawsuit comes a few months after female employees of Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corp., a US subsidiary of Novartis AG (NVS: News),
successfully won a jury award of more than $253 million in a
similar case. This was the largest jury award in the U.S. in a
gender discrimination case.
The current lawsuit alleges the practice of discrimination in pay,
promotions, and the treatment of pregnant women and mothers by the
multinational corporation. Bayer is also said to have published
and disseminated articles that suggest men are better suited to be
managers than women. The pharma giant calls female managers
'Backstabbing,' and 'Indecisive'.
The class is represented by Katherine Kimpel, who also secured the
positive verdict in Novartis case.
"Bayer engages in systemic discrimination against its female
employees -- particularly those with family responsibilities -- by
paying them less than their counterparts, denying them promotions
into better and higher paying positions, limiting their employment
opportunities to lower and less desirable job classifications, and
exposing them to different treatment and a hostile work
environment. To make matters worse, Bayer is often blatant about
its disregard for its female employees," Ms. Kimpel said in a
statement.
Through the lawsuit, the class members seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, back pay, front pay and lost benefits, as well
as compensatory, nominal and punitive damages in an amount of $100
million or more for themselves and similarly situated female
employees.
In September 2010, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was reportedly sued
by three former women employees who claim that the company
discriminated against women in both pay and promotion
opportunities. Reports said the suit alleges that such
discrimination is based upon company-wide policies and practices,
and are the result of gender bias that is deep-rooted in the
company's corporate culture.
BIG O TIRES: Sued in Calif. Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Big O Tires stiffs mechanics
for overtime, a class action claims in San Diego County Superior
Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Wickham v. Big O Tires, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 37-2011-00052576 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/21/BigO.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle B. Baker, Esq.
Michael S. Cunningham, Esq.
b/r Law Group LLP
Northern Trust Building
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 655
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 452-0093
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Continues to Defend Certified Wage & Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a class action in a San Francisco, California state court filed by
former hourly restaurant employees, according to the Company's
March 18, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended January 2, 2011.
On April 27, 2007, three former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a class-action lawsuit in the San
Francisco Superior Court. The parties purport to represent other
current and former hourly California restaurant employees. The
lawsuit alleges violations of state wage-and-hour laws involving
the purchase of items of apparel required to be worn by hourly
employees and reimbursement for laundering of these items of
apparel and seeks unspecified monetary damages. On August 11,
2010, the Court granted class certification in this matter. The
Company denies any liability with respect to these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. An estimate
of the possible loss, if any, or the range of the loss cannot be
made at time.
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Continues to Defend Class Actions in Los Angeles
------------------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., continues to defend class action
lawsuits filed by hourly restaurant employees in a California
state court in Los Angeles, according to the Company's March 18,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended January 2, 2011.
On July 3, 2007, two former hourly restaurant employees in the
State of California filed a class-action lawsuit in the Los
Angeles Superior Court alleging violations of state wage-and-hour
laws. On April 22, 2008 and on April 25, 2008, former hourly
employees in the State of California filed two additional lawsuits
in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging similar wage-and-hour
violations, and on December 4, 2008, the Court coordinated the
three cases. The parties purport to represent other current and
former hourly California restaurant employees. The lawsuit
alleges violations of state wage-and-hour laws involving
allegations of work performed off the clock, improper reduction in
hours, failure to provide meal and rest breaks and failure to
reimburse employees for expenses incurred in the course of
employment. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. In
December 2008, a proposed settlement was not approved by the
Court. The Company has accrued a loss contingency based on the
proposed settlement which is not considered to be material to the
Company's consolidated financial position. The Company denies any
liability with respect to these allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself in this action.
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Awaits Court Okay of Managers' Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., is anticipating that counsel for
the plaintiffs in a class action in a California state court will
file a motion seeking approval of a proposed settlement soon,
according to the Company's March 18, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
January 2, 2011.
On May 19, 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the State of
California in the San Diego Superior Court against the Company.
The lawsuit was filed by a former restaurant manager on behalf of
himself and other current and former restaurant managers employed
in California. The lawsuit alleges violations of state wage-and-
hour laws involving the exempt status of managers, alleges
violations of meal and rest breaks and unpaid overtime and seeks
unspecified monetary damages. On October 7, 2010, the Company
entered into a proposed settlement of all claims in the action.
This proposed settlement is subject to court approval. The
proposed settlement does not involve any admission of wrongdoing
or liability and, subject to court approval, will result in the
dismissal of the lawsuit's claims against the Company. Under the
proposed settlement, class members can submit claims pursuant to a
Court approved process whereby the Company would pay an amount not
to exceed $4.0 million to settle claims asserted on behalf of the
class. The Company has accrued a legal settlement reserve based
on its best estimate of costs to be incurred relative to this
case. The Company anticipates plaintiffs' counsel will be filing
a motion in the Superior Court in the near future requesting
approval of the proposed settlement. The Company cannot provide
any assurances that the Court will approve the proposed
settlement.
CELERA CORP: Continues to Defend Against "Washtenaw" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Celera Corporation continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's March 18,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2010.
On June 14, 2010, a purported class action captioned Washtenaw
County Employees' Retirement System v. Celera Corporation was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Celera and certain of its directors
and current and former officers. On September 23, 2010, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff and renamed the action In re Celera
Corp. Securities Litigation. An amended complaint was filed on
October 15, 2010. The amended complaint alleges that, from April
24, 2008, through July 22, 2009, the defendants set inadequate
allowances for doubtful accounts, concealed the extent to which
Celera's accounts receivable were impaired, and made other false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The action
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period in which the
alleged misrepresentations were made, as well as an award to the
lead plaintiff of its costs and attorneys' fees.
Celera believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the action.
Celera Corp. -- http://www.celera.com-- is a healthcare
business delivering personalized disease management through a
combination of products and services. The Company operates in
three segments: a clinical laboratory testing service business
(Lab Services), a products business (Products), and a segment
which includes other activities under corporate management
(Corporate). Its Lab Services business, conducted through
Berkeley HeartLab, Inc., (BHL), offers a portfolio of clinical
laboratory tests and disease management services to help
healthcare providers improve cardiovascular disease treatment
regimens for patients. Its Products business develops,
manufactures, and oversees the commercialization of molecular
diagnostic products, which are commercialized through its
relationship with Abbott Molecular, a subsidiary of Abbott
Laboratories. On July 1, 2008, Celera announced that it has
completed its split-off from Applera Corp.
CHEMUNG FINANCIAL: Allan Birkett Drops Stockholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan O. Birkett discontinued the stockholder class action lawsuit
he filed against Chemung Financial Corporation, according to the
Company's March 18, 2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
On March 11, 2011, Mr. Birkett filed a stockholder class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Albany, against CFC, Fort Orange Financial Corp. and the directors
of FOFC challenging the proposed merger of FOFC with and into CFC.
The lawsuit purported to be brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of FOFC and alleged, among other things, that the
directors of FOFC breached their fiduciary duties of care,
loyalty, good faith and fair dealing by agreeing to the proposed
transaction at an unfair price and through an unfair process. The
lawsuit further alleged that FOFC and CFC aided and abetted the
alleged fiduciary duty breaches.
On March 17, 2011, Mr. Birkett voluntarily discontinued the
lawsuit.
Chemung Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding company
for Chemung Canal Trust Company, which provides commercial and
consumer banking, and trust services primarily in New York. The
company was founded in 1833 and is based in Elmira, New York.
CLAIMS FUNDING: Class Action Fund Agreement Gets Conditional OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for the Financial Post, reports that an
Ontario Superior Court judge has conditionally approved a funding
agreement under which Claims Funding International PLC would
indemnify the plaintiffs against their exposure to the defendants'
costs, in return for a 7% share of the proceeds of any recovery in
a proposed class action against Manulife Financial Corporation.
The plaintiffs in Dugal v. Manulife Financial Corporation maintain
that Manulife made misrepresentations concerning its risk
management practices in its public disclosure documents, which
artificially inflated the value of its stock.
Charles Wright of Siskinds, who represents the plaintiffs, says
the case represents the first instance in Canada of this type of
third-party class action funding. Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky
calls the ruling a "very good and progressive decision" that
"takes reality into account."
CLARCOR INC: "Filter" Suits in U.S. and Canada Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions filed against CLARCOR Inc. by purchasers of
aftermarket filters remain pending, according to the Company's
March 18, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 26, 2011.
On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter
manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters,
Inc. (the Defendant Group), engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices,
rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket filters.
This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct
purchasers of filters from the Defendant Group. Parallel
purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect
purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs against
the Defendant Group in a variety of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada.
In addition, the Attorney General of the State of Florida and the
County of Suffolk, New York have filed complaints against the
Defendant Group based on these same allegations, and the Attorney
General of the State of Washington requested various documents,
information and cooperation, which the Company has agreed to
provide.
In late 2010, William Burch, a former employee of two other
defendants in the Defendant Group, brought an action under the
United States False Claims Act and similar state statutes on
behalf of the governments of the United States and approximately
20 individual states against the Defendant Group, based on these
same allegations (the Qui Tam Action). On March 1, 2011, Mr.
Burch voluntarily dismissed Baldwin Filters, Inc., from this
action, without prejudice, based on certain representations by
Baldwin. As such, Baldwin Filters, Inc. is no longer a defendant
in the Qui Tam Action.
The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice was
investigating the allegations raised in these suits and issued
subpoenas in connection with that investigation. The Company was
not contacted by the DOJ in connection with the DOJ investigation
and was not the subject of any subpoena. Public reports indicate
that the DOJ officially closed its investigation in January 2010
and took no action against any filter manufacturer.
All of the U.S cases, including the actions brought by and/or on
behalf of governmental entities, have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois. The Company believes all of these lawsuits and the
claims made therein to be without merit and is vigorously
defending them.
No further updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
CLARCOR Inc. -- http://www.clarcor.com/-- conducts business in
three segments: Engine/Mobile Filtration, Industrial/
Environmental Filtration and Packaging.
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Awaits Court Approval of Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of wage and hour lawsuits, according to the Company's
March 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.
In September 2010, following the dismissal of the state law claims
in Barrus (except those arising under New York law), state wage
and hour class action complaints were filed against the Company in
Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Delaware,
Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey,
South Carolina, Maryland, Vermont, North Carolina, Maine,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Colorado, Florida and Massachusetts --
State Claims. In these actions, plaintiffs assert claims similar
to those in the Barrus case and plaintiffs are seeking remedies
that include (to the extent applicable in each state) injunctive
relief, unpaid wages (including fringe benefits), liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, expenses, expert fees and an award of
interest.
On January 28, 2011, the Company and attorneys for a group of
plaintiffs filed a settlement agreement in the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York to settle
Barrus and the State Claims. The settlement, which is subject to
court approval, covers wage and hour claims under the laws of 36
states. Under the settlement, the total amount to be paid will
depend on the number of claims that are submitted by class members
with a maximum settlement amount not to exceed $15 million plus
interest and taxes. The settlement and related fees resulted in a
pre-tax charge during the fiscal fourth quarter of 2010 of
approximately $10.8 million ($6.5 million after tax).
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Suit Settlement Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
drugstore.com inc. is still awaiting a ruling on appeals made
regarding a court ruling approving a settlement of a consolidated
class action lawsuit, according to the Company's March 18, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011.
A consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. It names drugstore.com as a
defendant, along with the underwriters and certain of the
Company's present and former officers and directors (the
Individual Defendants), in connection with the Company's July 27,
1999 initial public offering and March 15, 2000 secondary offering
(together, the Offerings). The suit purports to be a class action
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the period July 28, 1999 to December 6, 2000.
In general, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses through
which the Company conducted the Offerings were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other
things, that (i) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated
to those investors' material portions of the restricted number of
shares issued in connection with the Offerings and (ii) the
underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with customers
whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate drugstore.com shares
to customers in the Offerings in exchange for which customers
agreed to purchase additional drugstore.com shares in the after-
market at predetermined prices. The complaint asserts violations
of various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The action seeks
damages in an unspecified amount and other relief. The action is
being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies or their present and former
officers and directors.
On October 9, 2002, the District Court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice. On December 5, 2006,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a
decision by the District Court granting class certification in six
of the coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as test, or
"focus," cases. The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which do
not include us. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied a
petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs, but noted that
plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify more narrow
classes than those that were rejected.
The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in drugstore.com's case, reached a settlement. The
insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will
make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including
drugstore.com. The District Court approved the settlement on
October 5, 2009. Two appeals of the settlement approval are
proceeding. Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss both appeals.
DUOYUAN PRINTING: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duoyuan Printing, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit in New York over purported securities laws
violations, according to the Company's March 18, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On September 20, 2010, a plaintiff filed a purported class action
naming the Company, its Chairman and certain present and former
senior executives and members of the Company's Audit Committee as
defendants, asserting claims for certain violations of the
securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. The complaint,
which is styled Jeff Perry, et al. v. Duoyuan Printing, Inc., et
al., is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaint purports to assert
claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock at allegedly
artificially high prices during the period between November 6,
2009 and September 13, 2010 and who suffered damages as a result
of such purchases. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company's financial results and financial statements during
the relevant period were materially false and misleading because
the Company failed to disclose that (1) the authenticity of
certain of the Company's expenses related to advertising and
tradeshow costs could not be verified; (2) the Company had
improper relationships with certain vendors and distributors; and
(3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.
There is not a time requirement on the Company's response to the
complaint. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint, but
intends to contest the allegations and to defend itself
vigorously.
FEDEX CORP: To Appeal Verdict Reversal to Washington Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
One of FedEx Corporation's business segments, FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc., intends to seek an appeal to the Washington Supreme
Court from a reversal of a verdict in a contractor-model lawsuit
captioned Anfinson v. FedEx Ground, according to the Company's
March 18, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.
FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 30 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.
Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.
In January 2008, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not
part of the multidistrict litigation, Anfinson v. FedEx Ground,
was certified as a class action by a Washington state court. The
plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of single-route, pickup-
and-delivery owner-operators in Washington from December 21, 2001
through December 31, 2005 and allege that the class members should
be reimbursed as employees for their uniform expenses and should
receive overtime pay. In March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson
case was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx
Ground, finding that all 320 class members were independent
contractors, not employees. The plaintiffs appealed the verdict.
In December 2010, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded for further proceedings, including a new trial. The
Company filed a motion to reconsider, and this motion was denied.
The Company intends to seek an appeal to the Washington Supreme
Court.
FEDEX CORP: "Taylor" Wage & Hour Suit Scheduled for Trial in July
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial of a purported class action lawsuit over alleged
violations of California wage and hour laws captioned Taylor v.
FedEx Freight filed against one of FedEx Corporation's
subsidiaries is scheduled to begin in July 2011.
In September 2009, in Taylor v. FedEx Freight, a California state
court granted class certification, certifying a class of all
current and former drivers employed by FedEx Freight in California
who performed linehaul services since June 2003. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that they were forced to work "off the
clock" and were not provided with required rest or meal breaks.
The case has been removed to federal court in California, and
trial is currently scheduled for July 2011.
No further updates were reported in the Company's March 18, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.
FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Defend "Bibo" Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A business segment of FedEx Corporation, Federal Express
Corporation, continues to defend the wage-and-hour case captioned
Bibo v. FedEx Express.
In April 2009, a California federal court granted class
certification, certifying several subclasses of FedEx Express
couriers in California from April 14, 2006, to the present. The
plaintiffs allege that FedEx Express violated California wage-
and-hour laws after April 14, 2006, the date of the Foster
settlement. In particular, the plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that they were forced to work "off the clock" and were not
provided with required meal breaks or split-shift premiums.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has refused to
accept a discretionary appeal of the class certification order at
this time.
No updates were reported in the Company's March 18, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended February 28, 2011.
FEDEX CORP: 20 of 28 FedEx Ground Summary Judgment Motions Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty out of the 28 summary judgment motions made by FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., on state law claims in class action lawsuits
have been granted, according to FedEx Corporation's March 18,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended February 28, 2011.
FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 30 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.
Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.
On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators. In sum, the court has now granted
FedEx Ground's motions for summary judgment and entered judgment
in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28
multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class
actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were
contractors as a matter of the law of the following states:
Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas (the court's previous
dismissal without prejudice of the nationwide class claim under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 based on the
plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies has been
appealed), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The
plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases.
In the other eight certified class actions in the multidistrict
litigation, the court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on some of
the claims and against FedEx Ground on at least one claim in three
of the cases (filed in Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire) and
then remanded all eight cases back to district court in the
following states for resolution of the remaining claims: Arkansas,
California, Florida, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire and Oregon
(two certified classes). In January 2011, the Company asked the
court to issue final judgments in these eight cases, and the court
denied the motion.
FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Continues to Defend "Tidd" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., one of FedEx Corporation's
business segments, continues to defend a class claim of failure to
pay regular wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the
matter Tidd v. Adecco USA, Kelly Services and FedEx Ground.
In September 2008, in Tidd v. Adecco USA, Kelly Services and FedEx
Ground, a Massachusetts federal court conditionally certified a
class limited to individuals who were employed by two temporary
employment agencies and who worked as temporary pick-up-and-
delivery drivers for FedEx Ground in the New England region
within the past three years. Potential claimants must voluntarily
"opt in" to the lawsuit in order to be considered part of the
class. In addition, in the same opinion, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims for unpaid overtime wages. The court has since
granted judgment in favor of the other two defendants with respect
to the overtime claims. Accordingly, the conditionally certified
class of plaintiffs is now limited to a claim of failure to pay
regular wages due under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
No updates were reported in the Company's March 18, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended February 28, 2011.
FEDEX CORP: Unit Continues to Defend "Rascon" Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of FedEx Corp. continues to face the class action
lawsuit captioned Rascon v. FedEx Ground in Colorado.
In August 2010, a contractor-model lawsuit that is not part of the
multidistrict litigation, Rascon v. FedEx Ground, was certified as
a class action by a Colorado state court. The plaintiff in Rascon
represents a class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-
operators in Colorado who drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001
pounds at any time from August 27, 2005 through the present. The
lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties
and attorneys' fees and costs, under Colorado law. The Company's
applications for appeal challenging the class certification
decision have been rejected.
No updates were reported in the Company's March 18, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended February 28, 2011.
KMART CORP: Non-Certification of "Juarez" Class Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court panel affirmed a trial court's order denying
class certification of the action styled Braulio Juarez v. Kmart
Corporation, Case No. A128164 (Ct. Appeals California, First
District, Division Five). The panel consists of presiding Judge
Barbara J.R. Jones and associate justices Mark B. Simons and
Terence L. Bruiniers.
The complaint was commenced by Braulio Juarez and six other
plaintiffs in May 2006 against Kmart and 17 companies that
provided janitorial services at Kmart stores in California,
alleging that they had not been paid overtime or provided with
required meal or rest breaks. In October 2009, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification against Kmart and three of its
janitorial service providers, Kellermeyer Building Services (KBS),
S&S Building Services, Inc. (S&S), and Horizon National Contract
Services, LLC (Horizon).
The appellate court also agrees with the trial court's decision to
reject the classes the plaintiffs had identified because common
questions did not predominate.
A copy of the Appellate Court's March 19, 2011, opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Xjthgtfrom Leagle.com.
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces Class Action Over Synthetic CDO Trades
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Lamont, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
management at Lehman Brothers Australia described local government
clients as the "usual suspects" as it sought to generate fees for
itself by putting clients into "upsizing" and "switching" of
synthetic CDO trades, some of which were more risky, the Federal
Court heard on March 21.
Tony Meagher, SC, representing a number of councils in a class
action against Lehman Brothers and the firm which it absorbed,
Grange Securities, explored alleged conflict of interest as he
tendered two volumes of internal bank documents and e-mails, which
had been meant to be used during the cross-examination of Lehman's
16 witnesses.
In a surprise move, Lehman on March 21 declined to put any of its
lay witnesses -- mainly staff -- on the stand, though it will call
its expert witnesses next week.
The court has already been told that Grange allegedly had
conflicts of interest in that it was the underwriter for all the
SCDOs in the class action, and so benefited from underwriting fees
and from generating further sales through "switching" clients from
one SCDO to another.
One client, who did not want to redeem the product and switch, was
pressured, with Grange saying there would be little research done
on the old product and it was "in your best interests to accept
the redemption".
Some emails tendered dealt with a push by Grange to increase its
Individually Managed Portfolio base -- where it did not have to
get approval from the client to trade when it had a new SCDO issue
-- and so could use these funds as a base for underwriting trades.
"Prime targets are existing clients who operate on a high trust
basis with Grange," an email said.
Speaking about the ratings agencies, Mr. Meagher tendered articles
from the Bank of France and the Bank of International Settlements,
which dealt with the reality that the ratings for SCDOs could not
be equated to the rating of corporate bonds.
Mr. Meagher said these articles were available for sophisticated
advisers such as Grange. But "it is this sort of stuff that
didn't find its way into any of the material" sent to the
councils, he said.
The councils have alleged Lehman/Grange breached its fiduciary
duty, failed to disclose adequately the risk of the SCDOs, and
failed to invest in accordance with the councils' conservative
investment criteria.
The hearing will continue today, March 24.
LIFE PARTNERS: Levi & Korsinsky Looks Into Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky is investigating possible violations of federal
securities laws by Life Partners Holdings, Inc. on behalf of all
investors who purchased Life Partners securities between May 29,
2007 and Jan. 20, 2011. A class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and/or
misleading statements. In particular, it is alleged that the
Company used life expectancy data that produced inaccurately short
life expectancy reports which were subsequently used to sell life
settlement policies to investors.
If you are a member of the class and suffered a loss in Life
Partners stock, you have until April 4, 2011 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve
as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information about your
rights, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via e-mail at
jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://www.zlk.com/life-partners-lphi.html
Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities
litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud and represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder
litigation. For more information, please feel free to contact any
of the attorneys listed below.
Contact: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP,
Joseph Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Joanna Chlebus, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY
30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
jchlebus@zlk.com
Web site: http://www.zlk.com/
LIMITED BRANDS: Motion to Dismiss IBEW Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Limited Brands, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action filed by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension
Fund remains pending.
On November 6, 2009, a class action (International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension Fund v. Limited Brands, Inc.
et al.) was filed against the Company and certain of its officers
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased
or acquired shares of Limited Brands common stock between
August 22, 2007 and February 28, 2008. On April 5, 2010, the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead and liaison counsel. On
June 25, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
August 24, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The
Company believes the complaint is without merit and that it has
substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may result from this lawsuit.
No updates were provided in the Company's March 18, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 29, 2011.
Limited Brands, Inc. -- http://www.limitedbrands.com/-- is a
specialty retailer of women's intimate and other apparel, beauty
and personal care products and accessories under various trade
names. The company sells its merchandise through the retail
stores in the United States and Canada, which are primarily mall-
based, and through its Websites and catalogues.
MASSEY ENERGY: "Misinformation" Argued in Class Action Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Lannom, writing for Register-Herald Reporter, reports that
testimony in a class action lawsuit to determine if students who
attend Marsh Fork Elementary School should be medically monitor
for latent ailments caused by exposure to coal dust resumed on
March 21 in Raleigh County Circuit Court.
The defense addressed the plaintiffs' claim of "misinformation"
about Massey Energy's boundary lines for a coal silo that is near
the school.
Out of the presence of the jury, defense attorney, Jon Anderson
made a motion for curative instruction saying that the property of
Goals Coal has been undisputed since the 1980s. Mr. Anderson said
that at that time, the incidental boundary revision report asked
whether bonded property would be within 300 feet of a public
school and that box was checked yes.
Where the confusion comes in, Mr. Anderson continued, is that IBR
No. 8 is not referencing the silo. Instead, he says, the revision
is addressing the added and deleted properties. The added acreage
is by the prep plant and is more than 300 feet away from the
school.
MGM RESORTS: Seeks Dismissal of Two Shareholder Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for the Las Vegas Sun, reports that action
is heating up in lawsuits filed since 2009 by disgruntled
shareholders against MGM Resorts International, Las Vegas Sands
Corp. and International Game Technology.
Shareholders -- and employees in one case -- complain in the suits
they lost money after investing in the stock of those companies
based on lack of disclosures or allegedly false statements about
their financial outlooks.
In 2009, six shareholder class-action or "derivative" lawsuits
were filed against MGM Resorts International -- then called MGM
Mirage -- in state and federal courts over the decline of its
stock price between August 2007 and March 2009.
These suits typically complain that between August 2007 and
March 2009, shareholders invested based on statements about MGM's
superior balance sheet -- only to lose money when the stock of the
company dropped from more than $15 in early January 2009 to $1.89
on March 5, 2009.
The stock fell after the company disclosed problems at its
CityCenter development on the Las Vegas Strip and that it faced
liquidity problems -- all as the worst recession in memory was
reducing travel to Las Vegas and spending at the company's
resorts.
MGM Resorts since 2009 has improved its financial position thanks
to debt and equity deals.
Last week, its attorneys filed a motion to dismiss two of the
shareholder lawsuits, which have been combined in U.S. District
Court for Nevada.
"Plaintiffs seek to blame MGM for failing to foresee the greatest
economic collapse since the Great Depression. Instead of
acknowledging the global economic crisis, its harsh effects on Las
Vegas in particular, and the severe slump in the real estate
development and gaming industries, plaintiffs cherry-pick positive
statements from MGM's public filings and earnings calls made
before and during this crisis, claim those statements were made
with knowledge of their alleged falsity, and seek to hold MGM and
its officers . . . liable for securities fraud," MGM Resorts'
attorneys wrote in their filing.
MGM Resorts' attorneys added that the suing shareholders had
failed to specify what statements were false.
"Although plaintiffs appear to contend that MGM's projected
construction budget and completion date for CityCenter were
somehow false, the complaint never alleges facts to show that
either turned out to be anything other than what MGM reported,"
MGM's filing said.
"Similarly, with respect to statements regarding MGM's ability to
secure lending and MGM's overall financial condition, the
complaint alleges nothing more than the fact that MGM's optimism
was later tempered by the impact of the worldwide financial
crisis," the filing said.
In backing up their assertions, company attorneys included in
their filing a chart showing MGM Resorts' 97% share-price decline
during the period at issue was in line with other casino companies
including Las Vegas Sands (down nearly 98%), Boyd Gaming Corp.
(down 92%) and Wynn Resorts Ltd. (down 83%).
Separately, attorneys for Las Vegas Sands filed a motion for
dismissal in January in two shareholder lawsuits filed last year
in the same court.
In those cases, disgruntled investors are seeking to recover
damages over a decline in the price of Las Vegas Sands stock from
$144 in 2007 to less than $2 per share in early 2009. That stock
has since rebounded somewhat as the company has improved its
balance sheet and is reporting booming revenue from its casinos in
Asia.
These suits claim that in 2007 increasing competition in Macau was
steadily eroding the company's foothold there, that it faced a
liquidity crisis because of heavy capital spending in Macau and
Singapore and that the company struggled to weather the economic
downturn because the credit markets were drying up and Las Vegas
Sands had been slow to access those markets.
In 2009, in state court lawsuits, Clark County District Court
Judge Allan Earl ruled Las Vegas Sands shareholders failed to show
mismanagement by board members or that they breached their
fiduciary duties; and said the shareholders didn't show Chairman
and CEO Sheldon Adelson exerted undue influence on the other board
members.
In responding in January to the federal lawsuits filed in 2010,
Las Vegas Sands attorneys wrote: "This lawsuit is an unwarranted
effort by plaintiffs to turn the effects of the global recession
on both the gaming industry and the company into a purported
scheme by the company and the individual defendants to defraud the
company's shareholders."
"There can be no dispute that the global recession hit just as the
company was executing its multi-phase global expansion strategy.
As the company faced challenges to its strategy due to the
worldwide decline in gaming patrons and the tightening of credit
markets, the company fully and repeatedly disclosed to investors
those challenges as they arose, along with its plans for resolving
them," the filing said.
It's not known when the judges handling these cases will rule on
the motions for dismissal.
In Reno last week, U.S. District Judge Edward Reed Jr. declined to
dismiss two lawsuits against International Game Technology -- but
he threw out several of the charges within the lawsuits.
One was filed by shareholders alleging that in November 2007, IGT
announced record results for its fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007,
and "painted a picture of a bright future for IGT" -- but didn't
disclose that play levels on IGT slot machines had started to
drastically decline that month and that expenses were running
unreasonably high.
The shareholders also complained that IGT failed to disclose
problems with its new server-based systems technology and that IGT
failed to disclose issues with contracts it was working on with
Caesars Entertainment Corp. and MGM Resorts International's
CityCenter. As evidence, the shareholders cited stock sales at
the time by then-CEO TJ Matthews.
These shareholders complained the stock fell from about $49 in
March 2008 to less than $8 in November 2008 as sales prospects
dimmed due to the recession hitting the gaming industry
"While plaintiffs' allegations based on defendants' earnings
forecasts, server-based technology schedule forecast, operating
expense forecast and stock sales are insufficient to allege fraud
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, plaintiffs'
allegations based on defendants' statements concerning play levels
and omissions relating to the CityCenter and Harrah's (Caesars)
agreements create an inference of scienter (acting knowingly) at
least sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss," Judge Reed wrote
in his ruling.
Judge Reed also declined to dismiss a lawsuit claiming IGT
employees were harmed when their retirement plan invested in IGT
stock.
That suit charged that the value of IGT stock in the retirement
plan tumbled by 67% in plan year 2008 to $34 million and the
workers were harmed because company officials "either were or
should have been aware that IGT's stock was artificially inflated
as a result of inaccurate public statements by IGT."
In that case, Judge Reed granted IGT's motion to dismiss certain
claims including that it failed to avoid conflicts of interest and
breaches of prudence and loyalty in investment of plan assets.
Judge Reed refused to deny certain claims including one of "breach
of duty to monitor" involving the IGT board of directors allegedly
failing to properly supervise the committee responsible for the
investment plan; and one of failure to disclose material facts
about the plan.
The two cases against IGT may now proceed toward trial or summary
judgment motions, unless they're settled.
MIAMI, FL: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling Over Arbitration Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Appeal of the Third District of Florida
upheld a trial court order vacating in part an arbitration award
in the action, Andrew Markowitz and Fraternal Order of Police
Lodge 20 v. City of Miami, Case No. 3D10-683.
On behalf of Andrew Markowitz, the Fraternal Order of Police or
FOP filed a grievance, claiming that the City was required to
provide but denied "light duty" work to Mr. Markowitz as he
recovered from an off-duty injury. Mr. Markowitz is a police
officer with the City of Miami. The FOP requested arbitration on
Mr. Markowitz's case pursuant to the provisions of a CBA between
FOP and the City. The FOP claimed that the arbitration was being
brought as a class action on behalf of similarly-situated
officers. The arbitrator then concluded that the Markowitz
grievance should be considered a class action.
The Appellate Court agrees with the trial court that the
arbitrator exceeded his power in expanding the grievance filed in
writing exclusively on behalf of Mr. Markowitz to include anyone
who was denied light duty because of an off-duty illness or
injury.
The Appellate Court's March 9, 2011 opinion, as concurred by
Judges David M. Gersten, Linda Ann Wells, and Richard J. Suarez,
is available at http://is.gd/lPctkdfrom Leagle.com.
MISSISSIPPI: Redistricting Plan Unconstitutional, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that the
NAACP claims in a federal class action that the Mississippi
Legislature's redistricting plan unconstitutionally dilutes black
voting strength. While an ideal redistricting draws districts
with population variations of plus or minus 5%, Mississippi's
state Senate districts vary by as much as 69%, and its House
districts by as much as 134%, the NAACP says.
Black voters in Mississippi historically "suffer from the
lingering effects of gross disparities in socioeconomic factors
that adversely affect their ability to effectively participate in
the political process and elect candidates of their choice to
elective office," the complaint states. "There have been overt
and subtle racial appeals in elections in Mississippi."
Fourteen of the 52 state Senate districts have population
deviations greater than 5%, with a range from +45.5% to -23.6%,
according to the complaint.
Thirty-eight of the 122 state House districts have population
deviations greater than 5%, with a range from +89.9% to -44.5%,
the complaint states.
The NAACP adds that both white and black voting blocs in
Mississippi tend to be cohesive.
The NAACP and its co-plaintiff voters say the state's
redistricting plans "are unenforceable as a matter of law unless
and until they are precleared" by the Justice Department or a
judge, under the Voting Rights Act.
The class claims the Mississippi Legislature has "refused to adopt
legislative plans that do not result in discrimination against the
plaintiffs."
Defendants include Gov. Haley Barbour, Attorney General Jim Hood,
Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, and the Mississippi
Republican and Democratic Party Executive Committees.
The class seeks declaratory judgment, a temporary restraining
order and injunction.
A copy of the Complaint in Mississippi State Conference of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al.
v. Barbour, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00159 (S.D. Miss.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/21/Mississippi.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carroll Rhodes, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CARROLL RHODES
Post Office Box 588
Hazlehurst, MS 39083
Telephone: (601) 894-4323
E-mail: crhode@bellsouth.net
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Bernzott Opt-Outs Cannot Rejoin Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge David S. Doty denied certain opt-out parties represented
by Bernzott Capital Advisors authority to rejoin the class
in the consolidated securities class action styled In Re
MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil No.
08-883(DSD/JJG) (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Minnesota).
The consolidated case was commenced by lead plaintiff Oklahoma
Teachers' Retirement System, asserting claims against defendants
MoneyGram International, Inc., William J. Putney, Jean C. Benson,
Philip W. Milne, David J. Parrin, Douglas L. Rock, Donald B.
Kiernan, Othon Ruiz Montemayor, Albert M. Teplin, and Monte E.
Ford. The parties agreed to settle the action and on March 10,
2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement and
preliminary certification of a Class consisting of persons and
entities who acquired MoneyGram securities between January 24,
2007 and March 25, 2008. Notice sent to putative class members
allowed them to request exclusion. On June 4, 2010, Bernzott
Capital Advisors timely requested exclusion on behalf of its
clients, 319 individuals or entities who were putative Class
members. The court subsequently held a fairness hearing on
June 18, 2010, and approved the Settlement as to a certified
Class, which did not include those who requested exclusion. The
settlement approval order became final on July 26, 2010.
The BCA Opt-Outs then moved to withdraw their request for
exclusion and to rejoin the class.
The court finds that expanding the Class, to include the BCA Opt-
Outs, could prejudice the existing Class members.
A copy of Judge Doty's March 9, 2011, order is available
at http://is.gd/JnlQrmfrom Leagle.com.
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Files Response to Lockout Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Farmer, writing for the Los Angeles Times, reports that the
NFL, determined to keep its lockout in place, filed its response
in federal court on March 21 to the players' class-action
antitrust lawsuit, claiming there are no legal grounds for forcing
the league to continue football operations.
The filing was made in the court of U.S. District Judge Susan
Richard Nelson in St. Paul, Minn., who is scheduled to hear the
antitrust claim on April 6.
In essence, the league is arguing:
* Congress has barred judges from stopping lockouts as part of
the Norris-La Guardia Act, which was intended to limit the ability
of employers to crack down on strikes. The league says that door
swings both ways and that law also protects an employer's right to
impose a lockout.
* The court needs to wait until the National Labor Relations
Board rules on the complaint the NFL filed in February that the
anticipated decertification by the NFL Players Assn. would be a
sham. The NFLPA indeed decertified, paving the way to fight a
lockout. The NLRB says it's still investigating the claim.
* The league is confronted with a Catch-22, saying the NFLPA
is simultaneously trying to force league operations to continue,
and make antitrust claims if the NFL attempts to act collectively.
* The NFLPA is still acting like a union -- again, this is
what the NFL claims -- and therefore has not truly decertified,
and has only claimed it has to gain leverage in bargaining.
That's not permitted. The NFLPA has maintained it is now a trade
association, not a union, and that it's acting as such.
The 57-page NFL document cites several examples of players
speaking as if the NFLPA decertified to gain a tactical advantage
in negotiations.
According to the filing, Kevin Mawae, president of the NFLPA, said
in September that decertification was an "ace in our sleeve" and
that "at the end of the day, guys understand the strategy, it's
been a part of the union strategy since I've been in the league
. . ."
Baltimore receiver Derrick Mason, an NFLPA player representative,
said in November of the consequences of a potential
decertification: "So are we a union? Per se, no. But we're still
going to act as if we are one. We're going to still talk amongst
each other, and we're going to still try to, as a whole, to get a
deal done."
NFL lawyers said that although the league is ready to resume
negotiations, it will not do so unless the NFLPA does so as a
union, which would allow the sides to engage in collective
bargaining. The league will not engage in discussions with the
NFLPA, defendant to plaintiff.
"Our commitment is to negotiate," said Jeff Pash, the NFL's lead
attorney. "We're not going to solve this in litigation. All
that's going to do is delay a solution."
The NFLPA sent a letter on March 21 to NFL attorney Gregg Levy,
reminding him that the league can contact the players' counsel
Jeffrey Kessler, lead counsel on the antitrust case, to engage in
pre-hearing talks.
In an interview on March 21 with ProFootballTalk Live, DeMaurice
Smith, executive director of the former union, said: "The real
issue is we want to play football, we've filed an injunction to
try to get football back in homes again and get our guys back
working and get our guys back playing the game that they love."
NORTHLAND PROPERTIES: Treatment to Temporary Workers Improved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sandborn, writing for The Hook, reports that Northland
Properties, the company that operates over 36 Denny's Restaurants
in western Canada, has reportedly improved some of its previously
problematic treatment of over 50 temporary workers from the
Philippines since they filed a class action suit against the firm.
According to Jane Ordinario, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group
Migrante, Denny's began providing the full time work the workers
were promised and paying properly for overtime, at least
temporarily, after court documents were filed this January. As
reported in The Tyee then, the workers, brought into Canada under
the controversial Temporary Foreign Workers Program.
Alleged in the legal documents was that they had been required,
improperly, to pay their own air fare from the Philippines as well
as a placement fee of over $6,000.00 each to recruiting firms in
the Philippines. Further, they said, they were not being provided
regularly with the full time work they had been promised, and were
sometimes required to work overtime without appropriate overtime
pay. (None of these allegations have been tested in court yet, and
Denny's management categorically denied them in an interview with
The Tyee in January.)
In 2009, Canada admitted 178, 640 temporary foreign workers, with
14,484 of these admissions from the Philippines, according to
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Over 44,000 foreign workers
were admitted to BC that year.
"Right after the suit was filed, the workers started getting full
40 hour work weeks," Ms. Ordinario told the Tyee on March 18. "But
that didn't last, and no one has been repaid for what they spent
to come to BC, or for any of the back overtime payments," she
said.
"What Denny's did after the suit was filed acknowledges that
they've done something wrong," Ms. Ordinario said. She noted that
her organization was holding a public forum on the Denny's case
and challenges facing temporary foreign workers on the evening of
March 23 at the Sheraton Wall Centre in downtown Vancouver, and
invited interested Tyee readers to attend.
While declining to comment on the specifics of what Ms. Ordinario
told The Tyee, or of the claims made in the class action suit,
Bobby Naicker, Denny's president, did make these comments via
email on March 18.
". . . I can tell you that we're maintaining our position of
treating all of our employees with fairness and equality. We
pride ourselves on our employment standards, and we have many
happy, long-term Foreign Workers employed at Denny's restaurants."
OKLAHOMA: Foster Care Class Action Trial Set to Begin in October
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ginnie Graham, writing for Tulsa World, reports that using
evidence shared in a federal class action lawsuit over the state's
foster care system, two experts commissioned by New York-based
Children's Rights condemned the Oklahoma Department of Human
Services as a mismanaged agency.
The experts released reports on March 21 through Children's
Rights.
Children's Rights filed a lawsuit in February 2008 against DHS
seeking wide-ranging reforms in its foster care system. A trial
is expected to begin as early as October.
The reports released on March 21 state abused and neglected
children taken into custody by DHS are further harmed by holes in
communication and the agency's flawed computer tracking system.
The study claims the problems have led to high rates of
maltreatment while in care, inadequate and untimely
investigations, extreme placement instability, unsafe and
inappropriate placements, poor efforts to maintain relationships
with biological families, inconsistent visitation by caseworkers
and denial of access to essential services.
"Given the overwhelming evidence that continues to mount, there
can be little question that the well-documented and pervasive
mismanagement of Oklahoma's foster care system is directly tied to
the harm that children in its custody suffer," stated Marcia
Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights, in a
press release.
The Department of Human Services could not immediately be reached
for comment.
OLDHAM NAIDOO: Judge to Rule on Bushfire Class Action Next Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selma Milovanovic, writing for The Age, reports that a judge will
decide next month whether to throw out a class action over the
2003 alpine bushfires after a law firm admitted it lodged the
lawsuit in the name of a Melbourne doctor without his permission.
Oldham Naidoo Lawyers has admitted an "abuse of process" for
naming the man as the lead claimant.
Speaking of the law firm's conduct, Supreme Court judge Jack
Forrest said "the ignorance is breathtaking" but ruled against
Oldham Naidoo partner Daniel Oldham and solicitor Jordana Dymond
being cross-examined. He said there might be future scrutiny of
Mr. Oldham's activities in the bushfire case by other legal
bodies.
The class action was lodged on Christmas Eve 2008, just before the
six-year statute of limitations expired.
The 2003 bushfires destroyed more than 1 million hectares of land.
The class action accused the government of negligence over failing
to adequately backburn and reduce forest-floor litter in state
parks, which allowed the fire to spread to private property.
The court heard that while Oldham Naidoo lawyers discussed the
possibility of becoming a group member in the class action with
Dr. Hershal Cohen, they never suggested he would be the lead
plaintiff.
The state government wants the class action thrown out, with its
counsel Peter Riordan, SC, saying that "the court would not want
to see its processes abused".
"There are reasons why in a class action solicitors who may stand
to gain substantial fees may . . . file proceedings," Mr. Riordan
said.
Mr. Riordan said Mr. Oldham deliberately concealed the lawsuit
from Dr Cohen while knowing he did not own any property relevant
to the case, and deliberately misled the court when he claimed Dr
Cohen had instructed him to act.
Mr. Riordan said the law firm's suggestion to substitute Dr Cohen
with Robert Arnold, whose companies used to lease the Mount
Buffalo Chalet from the government, was "perfectly inappropriate
unless a security is put up" because Mr. Arnold now lived in
Switzerland.
Stewart Anderson, SC, for Oldham Naidoo, said dismissing the class
action would cause overwhelming prejudice to class action group
members, because they would be "shut out" from making a claim.
But Mr. Riordan said no such people had come forward until now
apart from Mr. Arnold.
"The defendant is entitled to say 'enough's enough', that's what
you've got going against you," Justice Forrest told Mr. Anderson.
But Mr. Anderson said the case had not reached that point and
Mr. Arnold was now the potential lead plaintiff.
ONLINE TRAVEL SITES: Suit Over Taxes Gains Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Senn, writing for Rome News-Tribune, reports that nearly six
years after Rome filed a lawsuit against a handful of online
travel sites, that lawsuit has gained class-action status and a
local law firm is taking the lead in the case.
U.S. District Court Judge Harold. L. Murphy signed the order
granting class action certification on March 21, allowing multiple
cities and counties suing more than a dozen online travel
companies to band together.
Cities and counties are arguing that sites such as Hotels.com,
Orbitz.com and Travelocity.com are charging customers full local
taxes but not reimbursing local municipalities.
Attorney Bob Brinson, of the Rome law firm Brinson, Askew, Berry,
Richardson, Siegler and Davis, said the Rome-based firm now
represents all of the cities and counties in Georgia, with the
exclusion of Atlanta and Columbus.
"We now represent all of the cities and counties who impose these
taxes," he said. "It's a big move and a big event in this case."
Mr. Brinson said a jury trial or a settlement could take place in
a year.
"One of the most difficult things was getting class action
certification, and we got over that hump," he said.
Mr. Brinson said that the online travel companies are withholding
tax dollars by purchasing rooms from hotels and motels at a
reduced rate, selling those rooms for a large profit while
charging taxes based on the larger amount and pocketing some of
the tax money they made on the difference.
"We want them the pay the right amount," he said.
The certification shows that the lawsuit has merit, Mr. Brinson
said.
"This has been a long time coming but this was a very complicated
order and we are proud of that," Mr. Brinson said.
The lawsuit asks for taxes, penalties and interest into the multi-
millions (of dollars), Mr. Brinson said.
If the plaintiff win, the money would be divided up among the
municipalities based on the among of money each county or city
would have lost due to nonpayment.
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Class Certification of "Sher" Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court panel vacated a district court's class
certification order in the actions, Nancy Sher, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, James R. Abel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Carol
A. Caleca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Louis Giocondo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Betty L. Key, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; Linda Swartout, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. v. Raytheon
Company, Case No. 09-15798 (U.S. Ct. of Appeals, Eleventh
Circuit). The panel consists of Circuit Judges Edmonson Hill and
Arthur R. Alarcon.
The Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
owners of real property impacted by the alleged environmental
contamination caused by Raytheon. The Plaintiffs asserted that
Raytheon, through improper disposal and storage of hazardous waste
at its St. Petersburg, Florida facility, is responsible for the
release of toxic waste into the groundwater of surrounding
neighborhoods.
Judge Hill, who penned the appellate ruling, held that the
district court erred as a matter of law by not sufficiently
evaluating and weighing conflicting expert testimony presented by
the parties at the class certification stage.
Upon review, the Eleventh Circuit concludes that there is not
enough evidence to support a class at this stage of the
litigation. The Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of
proof, Judge Hill states.
The Eleventh Circuit thus remands the class action for further
proceedings.
A copy of the Appellate Court's March 9, 2011, order is available
at http://is.gd/0ZyuYFfrom Leagle.com.
SANDHURST TRUSTEES: To File Proposed Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Munro, writing for Money Management, reports that law
firm Slater & Gordon was set to file a proposed settlement of a
class action against Sandhurst Trustees Limited in relation to the
collapse of Fincorp Investments on March 22.
The proposed settlement was set to be filed in the Federal Court
of Australia in Melbourne.
Slater & Gordon commenced the class action on behalf of investors
in 2009, representing lead plaintiffs Mark and Rhonda Harrison of
Queensland.
SAKS INC: Continues to Defend Amended Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Saks Incorporated continues to defend itself against an amended
class action lawsuit filed by Dawn Till and Mary Josephs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the Company's March 18,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended January 29, 2011.
On February 2, 2011, the plaintiffs in Dawn Till and Mary Josephs
v. Saks Incorporated et al, filed a complaint, with which the
Company was served on March 10, 2011, in a purported class and
collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs
were improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California
Labor Code and that the Company failed to pay overtime, provide
itemized wage statements and provide meal and rest periods. On
March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a
claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004. The plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under
the FLSA and as a class under the California statutes on behalf of
individuals who have been employed by OFF 5TH as Selling and
Service Managers, Merchandise Team Managers, or Department
Managers. The Company believes that its managers at OFF 5TH have
been properly classified as exempt under both Federal and state
law and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. It is not
possible to predict whether the court will permit this action to
proceed collectively or as a class.
SECURITIES AMERICA: Investors Should Consider Legal Options
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
encourages all Securities America customers who are eligible to
participate in the Medical Capital class action to consider all of
their legal options in light of the recent ruling made by U.S.
District Court Judge Royal Furgeson rejecting the preliminary
settlement of the class action. Specifically, Judge Furgeson
ruled that securities arbitration claims can proceed against
Securities America instead of being grouped together with the
class action. Presently, K&T is handling securities arbitration
claims against Securities America on behalf of investors who
sustained investment losses in Medical Capital Notes.
Judge Furgeson's ruling came in response to claims made by
Securities America that allowing arbitration claims to go forward
could severely impact the financial condition of the brokerage
firm. This argument, however, does not take into account the deep
pockets of Securities America's parent company, Ameriprise
Financial, and the capital it has available to help pay out on
settlements and Awards. Further, it denies Securities America
customers of their contractual right to opt out of the class
action and file an individual arbitration claim. According to
Lawrence L. Klayman of Klayman & Toskes, "We have consistently
said that investors who lost more than $100,000 in their brokerage
account should pursue an individual arbitration claim rather than
participate in a class action." This is supported by a recent
FINRA Award that was rendered against Securities America in
December 2010. In the matter of Wayman v. Securities America, et
al., FINRA Case No. 10-00012, the Panel awarded the Claimant
$734,118 for losses sustained in Medical Capital Notes.
Additionally, the Panel held Securities America responsible for
$250,000 in punitive damages, $111,465 in attorneys' fees, and
almost $60,000 in costs.
K&T reminds investors of the benefits of filing an individual
securities arbitration claim, as opposed to participating in a
class action lawsuit. By participating in a class action lawsuit,
an investor may only recover a nominal amount. However, if one
has experienced significant losses in Medical Capital Notes, it
may be more beneficial for them to file an individual securities
arbitration claim. In 2003, Klayman & Toskes conducted a detailed
study of securities arbitration versus class action. The study
concluded that investors who file a securities arbitration claim
traditionally obtain an overall higher rate of recovery as opposed
to participating in a class action lawsuit. To view the full
results of the comparison, please visit our Web site:
http://www.nasd-law.com/documents/classvr.pdf
In addition to the traditional higher rate of recovery, a
suitability analysis is conducted in arbitration which takes the
specific nuances of a claimant's case into account when valuing
the case. When assessing whether the Medical Capital Notes were
suitable for a claimant, an arbitration Panel reviews their age,
level of sophistication, net worth and similar factors. However,
in a class action, an investor's individual case facts would not
be factored into the value of their case nor is a suitability
analysis conducted. As such, eligible class members who purchased
Medical Capital Notes from Securities America should consider
whether they should participate in the class action or file an
individual securities arbitration claim.
Investors who purchased Medical Capital Notes from Securities
America and sustained significant losses can contact K&T to
explore their legal rights and options. The attorneys at K&T are
dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have
suffered investment losses. K&T, an experienced, qualified and
nationally recognized securities litigation law firm, practices
exclusively in the field of securities arbitration and litigation.
It continues its representation of investors throughout the world
in securities arbitration and litigation matters against major
Wall Street brokerage firms.
If you wish to discuss this announcement or have investment losses
of $100,000 or more in Medical Capital Notes, please contact
Steven D. Toskes, Esquire or Jahan K. Manasseh, Esquire of Klayman
& Toskes, P.A., at 888-997-9956, or visit us on the web at
http://www.nasd-law.com/
CONTACT: Steven D. Toskes, Es.
Jahan K. Manasseh, Esq.
KLAYMAN & TOSKES, P.A.
Telephone: 888-997-9956
Web site: http://www.nasd-law.com/
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856: Appeals Court Affirms Class Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that a claim that a public employee union failed to properly
represent members of a bargaining unit must be decided in the
first instance by the Public Employee Relations Board, rather than
the courts, the First District Court of Appeal ruled on March 18.
Div. Four affirmed a Marin Superior Court judge's dismissal of a
putative class action brought by 17 current and former deputy
probation officers in Marin County. The plaintiffs claimed that
Local No. 856 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
conspired with the county to prevent them from obtaining overtime
compensation.
The complaint included causes of action for breach of the duty of
fair representation, common law breach of fiduciary duty, and
fraudulent concealment. The plaintiffs alleged that the union was
aware as early as 1994 that the deputy probation officers were
working more than 40 hours per week and were not "professionals"
within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which would
make them exempt from overtime.
In sustaining demurrers to all three causes of action, Judge Verna
Adams ruled that she lacked jurisdiction under the Meyers-Milias-
Brown Act, which governs public sector labor relations in
California. Judge Adams said the claims fell under a section of
the act giving PERB exclusive jurisdiction, subject to judicial
review, of all unfair labor practice claims under the act.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued alternatively that they fell
under a section of the act exempting claims by peace officers
from PERB's jurisdiction, that breach of the duty of fair
representation is not an unfair labor practice, and that their
second and third causes of action fell outside of PERB's
jurisdiction because they were common-law tort claims.
Justice Maria Rivera, however, said the trial judge was correct in
ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under
any theory.
Government Code Sec. 3511, Rivera said, clearly states that claims
are exempt from PERB's initial jurisdiction when they involve
"persons who are peace officers as defined in Section 830.1 of the
Penal Code." Deputy probation officers are not defined as peace
officers by that section, and the fact that they are so defined
under another section of the code is irrelevant, the justice
concluded.
Breach of the duty of fair representation, Justice Rivera went on
to say, is an unfair labor practice because PERB has said so in
published decisions, to which the court must defer.
The justice acknowledged that a case cited by Adams in her ruling
for the lower court, Anderson v. California Faculty Assn. (1994)
25 Cal.App.4th 207, deals with the Higher Education Employer-
Employee Relations Act, which unlike the MMBA explicitly makes
breach of the duty of fair representation an unfair labor
practice. But the lack of such an explicit provision in the MMBA
makes no difference in light of PERB's interpretation and
regulations implementing the MMBA, she said.
In an unpublished portion of the opinion, Justice Rivera said
PERB's jurisdiction extended to what the plaintiffs sought to
plead as tort claims, because they arose from the same essential
facts as the fair representation cause of action.
The case is Paulsen v. Local No. 856 of International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, 11 S.O.S. 1470.
TIGRENT INC: Enters Into Settlement of Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
On March 18, 2011, Tigrent, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Tigrent
Enterprises Inc., f/k/a EduTrades, Inc., and Tigrent Learning
Inc., f/k/a Wealth Intelligence Academy, Inc., entered into a
Settlement Agreement which, subject to final court approval, will
settle all claims brought against the Tigrent Entities arising in
the litigation case pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, captioned Eric Springer and
Maurice J. Seghers, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated vs. Tigrent Inc., Wealth Intelligence Academy,
Inc., et al. (originally filed in 2009). In connection with the
settlement, the Tigrent Entities did not admit any liability in
the case.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the named
plaintiffs and any other class member who does not opt out of the
settlement have agreed to grant a full general release of all
claims they had or could have brought against the Tigrent Entities
in the litigation, In exchange, the Tigrent Entities agreed to
make three of its investment seminars available to the Settlement
Class, free of charge, by placing the seminars on a website to
which members of the Settlement Class will have access for a
period of ninety (90) days after court approval of the settlement.
In addition, the Tigrent Entities agreed to reimburse the
Settlement Class for their attorneys' fees, taxable costs, and
incentive awards for the putative class representative in an
amount to be awarded by the Court, but in no event more than
$110,000.
The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Court. In
addition, the Tigrent Entities have the option to withdraw from
the Settlement Agreement if the number of potential class members
who opt out of the settlement represent potential damages in
excess of an agreed upon percentage of the aggregate amount of
potential damages to all potential class members. Potential
damages are measured as the dollar amount paid by the potential
class members for the seminars, products, or services that are the
subject of the dispute. If the Court does not approve the
Settlement Agreement, including the terms set forth therein, or
the Tigrent Entities elect to terminate the Settlement Agreement
because the number of potential class members that opt out of the
settlement exceeds the Exclusion Limit, then the settlement and
the Settlement Agreement will be terminated and deemed null and
void.
TRIAD GUARANTY: Amends Complaint Against AHM in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc. amended its complaint against American Home
Mortgage to add a count alleging fraud, according to the Company's
March 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.
On September 4, 2009, Triad filed a complaint against American
Home Mortgage in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware seeking rescission of multiple master
mortgage guaranty insurance policies and declaratory relief. The
complaint seeks relief from AHM as well as all owners of loans
insured under the master policies by way of a defendant class
action. Triad alleged that AHM failed to follow the delegated
insurance underwriting guidelines approved by Triad, that this
failure breached the master policies as well as the implied
covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and that these breaches
were so substantial and fundamental that the intent of the master
policies could not be fulfilled and Triad should be excused from
its obligations under the master policies.
On March 4, 2011, Triad amended its complaint to add a count
alleging fraud in the inducement. The total amount of risk
originated under the AHM master policies, accounting for any
applicable stop loss limits associated with modified pool
contracts, was $1.5 billion, of which $0.9 billion remains in
force at December 31, 2010. Triad continues to accept premiums
and process claims under the master policies but, as a result of
this action, Triad ceased remitting claim payments to companies
servicing loans originated by AHM. Both premiums and claim
payments subsequent to the filing of the complaint have been
segregated pending resolution of this action. The Company has not
recognized any benefit in its financial statements pending the
outcome of the litigation.
U.S. INSURERS: Agree to Terms of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Hofmann, writing for Business Insurance, reports that
insurer and broker defendants and plaintiffs in a complex class
action involving allegations of improper industry practices have
agreed to the terms of a settlement.
In a memorandum of settlement understanding agreed to on March 18
by parties on both sides of the case, which dates back to 2004,
insurers and brokers agreed to pay $36.75 million into a
settlement fund.
The policyholder plaintiffs had alleged that dozens of insurers
and brokers had engaged in a conspiracy and violated the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Criminal Organizations Act and the
Sherman Antitrust Act, but Newark, N.J., U.S. District Court Judge
Garrett E. Brown Jr. and another previously assigned judge had
dismissed those claims.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld most of the lower court's decision but vacated certain
portions of the dismissals last year.
After engaging in mediation for several months, the parties agreed
last week to a proposed settlement.
Under the proposal, American International Group Inc., Liberty
Mutual Holding Co. Inc., Travelers Cos. Inc. and units of XL
Insurance will pay $27 million into the fund, with each company's
payment "expressly limited to its respective individual share" as
agreed to by those four defendants, according to the agreement.
The remaining $9.75 million will be paid by Aon Corp., CNA
Financial Corp., Crum & Forster Holding Corp., Hartford Financial
Services Group and Willis Group Holdings P.L.C.
"We are pleased to have reached an agreement to resolve this
matter," AIG in a statement. "Through this settlement, AIG brings
an end to another longstanding lawsuit about events from many
years ago, allowing AIG to continue to focus its efforts on paying
back taxpayers and restoring the value of our franchise for the
benefit of all our stakeholders."
Several of the remaining defendants in the case had not yet agreed
to the settlement proposal.
UNITED STATES: Lawyers Want Legal Fee in Keepseagle Suit Capped
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times, by Mike
Scarcella, U.S. Justice Department lawyers have asked a federal
judge in Washington to limit legal fees in a Native American
farmer and rancher class action to $30.4 million, the low end of a
range the lawyers in the case agreed to in a $760 million
settlement.
The plaintiffs' lawyers, led by Joseph Sellers of Washington's
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, has asked for an 8% cut, or $60.8
million, for the work performed in Keepseagle v. Vilsack since it
was filed in 1999. In November, a judge preliminarily approved
the settlement, which resolves claims the government discriminated
in farm loan servicing and processing.
In their fee petition, filed in January, the plaintiffs' lawyers
said they "worked vigorously and without compensation for over
eleven years" to reach a settlement amid hard-fought litigation.
DOJ lawyers, in court papers filed March 18, urged Judge Emmet
Sullivan of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia not
to approve $60.8 million.
"The amount now requested far exceeds what is reasonable to
compensate counsel for their time on the case and would
unreasonably decrease the amount of money available to the class
members under the agreement," Amy Powell of the DOJ's Federal
Programs Branch wrote in the government's filing.
Ms. Powell said the "government has an interest in ensuring that
the class reaps the full benefit of the settlement and that funds
coming ultimately from federal coffers are not expended in an
unnecessary or unreasonable manner."
The main argument DOJ lawyers make is that the plaintiffs'
lodestar award, including fees and future expenses, is nearly $27
million.
The plaintiffs' lawyers, who also include Jenner & Block partner
Paul Smith, David Frantz of Washington's Conlon, Frantz & Phelan
and Anurag Varma of Patton Boggs, have said they are willing to
make billing records available to the court for review in
chambers.
DOJ lawyers said the plaintiffs' team has not justified its
decision to withhold the records from Sullivan and they "have not
justified providing only ex parte access to those records."
Sellers and the plaintiffs' lawyer have also proposed incentive
awards of $100,000 for six class representatives, $200,000 for one
representative and $75,000 to the estates of two deceased
representatives.
The Justice Department declined to take a position on how much
class representatives should receive in incentive awards, which
are paid to plaintiffs who performed services on behalf of the
class. DOJ, however, said the award the plaintiffs have asked for
is "extraordinarily high" compared to other cases in Washington's
federal trial court.
VESTAS WIND: Pension Fund Files Class Action in the U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a pension fund has launched a class action
lawsuit against Denmark's Vestas in the United States claiming the
company gave misleading information that artificially inflated its
share price.
The City of Sterling Heights General Employees Retirement System
of Michigan filed the suit against Vestas Wind Systems A/S, its
Chief Executive Ditlev Engel, Chairman of the Board Bent Erik
Carlsen, Chief Financial Officer Henrik Norremark, the fund's
attorneys said in a document on the law firm's website.
U.S. law firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, which was lead
counsel for investors in the Enron case, also named the group's
U.S. subsidiary Vestas Americas Inc and its chief Martha Wyrsch as
defendants.
Vestas, the world's largest wind turbine maker, said in a
statement on March 21 the complaint related to a change in its
accounting policy last year and was without merit. The company
intended to defend itself vigorously, it said.
In November 2010, Vestas adopted a new accounting policy that
affected revenue recognition from a certain kind of contract and
affected historic revenues up to the end of September 2010.
The change reduced equity by EUR739 million ($1.05 billion) and
was heavily criticized by some analysts.
"The company has reviewed the complaint with its legal and other
advisors and believes that the complaint is without merit," Vestas
said. "The company and the individual defendants intend to defend
themselves vigorously."
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP said in its statement the lawsuit
was filed in Federal district court in Colorado for purchasers
of Vestas securities during the period between Oct. 27, 2009 and
Oct. 25, 2010.
"The complaint charges Vestas and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,"
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd said.
"The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial revenues and earnings, as well as its fiscal
year 2010 financial guidance," the law firm said.
As a result, the law firm for the plaintiffs said, "Vestas'
American Depository Receipts (ADRs) and ordinary shares traded
at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period,
reaching a high of $26.00 and $78.05 per share, respectively, on
November 9, 2009."
"Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Vestas securities during the Class Period," the law firm said.
Shares in Vestas traded down 2.7% at 202.40 Danish crowns ($38.96)
by 1306 GMT, against the trend of a firmer Copenhagen bourse
.OMXC20.
XFONE INC: Israel Court to Hear Class Action Request on April 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xfone, Inc., has entered into a settlement with a plaintiff of a
class action lawsuit in Israel, according to the Company's
March 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur et al. filed a request to
approve a claim as a class action against Xfone 018 Ltd., the
Company's former 69% Israel-based subsidiary, and four other
Israeli telecom companies, all of which are entities unrelated to
the Company, in the District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel. The
Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully
fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of
telephone calls by consumers to the Defendants' respective
technical support numbers. One of the Petitioners, Mr. Eli
Sharvit, seeks damages from Xfone 018 for the cost such telephone
calls allegedly made by him during the 5.5-year period preceding
the filing of the Class Action Request, which he assessed at NIS
54.45 (approximately $15.34). The Class Action Request, to the
extent it pertains to Xfone 018, states total damages of NIS
7,500,000 (approximately $2,113,271) which reflects the
Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to all consumers that
(pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly called Xfone
018's technical support number during a certain period defined in
the Class Action Request.
On February 22, 2011, Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit entered into a
settlement agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Xfone
018 agreed to compensate its registered customers of international
calling services who called its telephone service center from
December 15, 2004 until December 31, 2009, due to a problem in the
Services, and were charged for such calls. The Compensation
includes a right for a single, up to ten minutes, free of charge,
international call to one landline destination around the world,
and shall be valid for a period of six months. In addition, Xfone
018 agreed to pay Mr. Sharvit a one-time special reward in the
amount of NIS 10,000 (approximately $2,817). Xfone 018 further
agreed to pay Mr. Sharvit attorneys' fee for professional services
in the amount of NIS 40,000 (approximately $11,271) plus VAT. In
return, Mr. Sharvit and the members of the Represented Group (as
defined in the Settlement Agreement) agreed to waive any and all
claims in connection with the Class Action Request. As required by
Israeli law in such cases, the Settlement Agreement is subject to
the approval of the Israeli Court. A court hearing with respect to
the Class Action Request has been scheduled for April 17, 2011. At
this hearing, the Israeli Court will consider Xfone 018 and Mr.
Sharvit's request to approve the Settlement Agreement.
*********
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 * * *