/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110419.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 19, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 77 Headlines ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Appeal of "Angevine" Suit Dismissal Pending ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Awaits Ruling on "Adams" Suit Dismissal Plea BROADCOM CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates Investor Class Action CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Over VAT Charges Dismissed DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: 5 Lawsuits Filed in Texas Over Recall EXTENDED STAY: Wexler Wallace Files Class Action in California FORD MOTOR: Expands Vehicle Recall Over Air Bag Failure GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Actions in Four States Over Yo-Plus LONDON, UK: Kettling of G20 Protester Illegal, Court Rules LOS ANGELES: Syphillis Treatment Disclosure Order Overturned MATCH.COM: Exposes Women to Sexual Predators, Calif. Suit Claims NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty REDBOX AUTOMATED: Suit Over Excessive Late Fees Remains Pending TEVA PHARMA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Laquinimod Results URBAN ACTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Conduct USA FAR OCEAN: Faces Class Action Over "U-Prosta" False Claims VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Wolumla Residents Mull Class Action WAL-MART STORES: Overtime Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action WASHINGTON, DC: MWAA Faces Class Action in Virginia Over Tolls ********* ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Appeal of "Angevine" Suit Dismissal Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit filed by Richard F. Angevine remains pending, according to Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV's April 13, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On December 1, 2009, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. and the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan were sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in a lawsuit styled Richard F. Angevine v. Anheuser- Busch InBev SA/NV, et al. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation, which was divested on December 1, 2009, and the four Metal Container Corporation plants which were divested on October 1, 2009. He also seeks to certify a class action and represent certain employees of any other Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. subsidiary that has been divested or may be divested during the three-year period from the date of the Anheuser-Busch acquisition, November 18, 2008, through November 17, 2011. The lawsuit contains claims that the class, if certified, is entitled to enhanced retirement benefits under the Anheuser-Busch Companies' Salaried Employees' Pension Plan. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the divestitures resulted in his "involuntarily termination," as defined in the Pension Plan, from "Anheuser-Busch Companies and its operating division and subsidiaries" within three years of the November 18, 2008 Anheuser-Busch acquisition, which allegedly triggers the enhanced benefits under the Pension Plan. The plaintiff claims that by failing to provide him and the other class members, if certified, with these enhanced benefits, the Company breached its fiduciary duties under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The claim for plaintiffs' benefits alone totals $385,000. He also seeks punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On July 16, 2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit. The court ruled that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages were not proper. The court also found that the plaintiff did not exhaust all of his administrative remedies, which he must first do before filing a lawsuit. On August 9, 2010, the plaintiff has filed an appeal of this decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is currently pending. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Awaits Ruling on "Adams" Suit Dismissal Plea ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is awaiting a decision on its motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Rusby Adams, et al., in Ohio, according to the Company's April 13, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On September 15, 2010, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV and several of its related companies were sued in Federal Court for the Southern District of Ohio in a lawsuit entitled Rusby Adams et al. v. AB InBev, et al. This lawsuit was filed by four employees of Metal Container Corporation's facilities in Columbus, Ohio, Gainesville, Florida, and Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin that were divested on October 1, 2009. Similar to the lawsuit filed by Richard F. Angevine, these plaintiffs seek to represent a class of participants of the Anheuser-Busch Companies' Inc. Salaried Employees' Pension Plan who had been employed by Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. subsidiaries that had been or may be divested during the period November 18, 2008, through November 17, 2011. The plaintiffs also allege claims similar to the Angevine lawsuit, namely, that by failing to provide plaintiffs with these enhanced benefits, the Company breached its fiduciary duties under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is currently pending. BROADCOM CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Carol J. Williams, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a federal appeals court on April 14 reinstated a class-action lawsuit filed by Broadcom Corp. investors against Ernst & Young, saying the auditors should have known about an option-backdating scheme at the Irvine tech company. A lower-court judge had dismissed the case against Ernst & Young after concluding the plaintiffs hadn't shown that the auditors knew that the value of Broadcom's stock was probably inflated by the company's manipulation of its financial statements. The April 14 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed that dismissal and scolded Ernst & Young for not acting to stop the $2.2-billion backdating scheme. Ernst & Young "apparently accepted management at its word, never received requested documentation and issued an unqualified opinion on the accuracy of Broadcom's financial statements," the 9th Circuit panel ruled in overturning the lawsuit's dismissal by U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real in Los Angeles. Ernst & Young's audit "amounted to no audit at all," the appeals court said. A spokesman for Ernst & Young declined to comment on the ruling, saying the firm was still reviewing it. The appeals court action sends the case back to Real for trial, barring other successful legal challenges by the defendants. Broadcom's $2.2-billion restatement of financial results in early 2007 was the largest resulting from a wave of stock-option scandals at about 200 U.S. companies. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Over VAT Charges Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- StreetInsider.com reports that Cellcom Israel Ltd. said that a purported class action filed against the Company in September 2000, in connection with VAT charges in respect of insurance premiums and the provision of insurance services that were allegedly provided not in accordance with the law, was dismissed with prejudice. Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS402 million. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: 5 Lawsuits Filed in Texas Over Recall --------------------------------------------------------- Five cases were filed April 14 on behalf of plaintiffs whose DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Hip Replacement Systems have failed. The cases were filed on behalf of Juan and Helen Campo, Elizabeth and Charles Gorbett, Richard Boyd, Thomas and Melanie Neal and Patricia Johnson Taylor against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy Inc., DePuy International, Ltd., Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson International, Inc. John David Hart is the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the individual lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a division of Johnson and Johnson, Inc., recalled its ASR XL Acetabular Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacement System on August 24, 2010. This recall came after data from a recent study indicated that the five year failure rate of this product is approximately 13%, or more than 1 out of every 8 patients. DePuy identified reasons for the failure of the hip replacement system as component loosening, component malalignment, infection, fracture of the bone, dislocation, metal sensitivity and pain. Additional complications from the DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Hip Replacement System may include increased metal ion levels in the blood, bone staining, necrosis, swelling, nerve damage, tissue damage and/or muscle damage. This device was marketed by DePuy Orthopaedics as a high performance hip replacement system. However, recent information published by the British Orthopaedic Association indicates that failure rates at six years may be as high as 49%. "The number of people injured and harmed by this defective device is staggering and continues to grow," said attorney John David Hart. "Many are suffering from severe pain on a daily basis. There are also serious concerns about the long-term effects of increased metal ion levels in the blood stream. Of the lawsuits filed today, each of the individuals with the recalled device has either already required revision surgery to remove the defective device or is facing the potential for revision surgery in the future." John David Hart and the Law Offices of John David Hart represent many individuals in the United States who have been injured as a result of this defective hip replacement system. The Law Offices of John David Hart is a group of experienced and dedicated legal professionals working to protect the rights of people wronged by the acts of others. Across the country, the firm represents individuals in cases of catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, dangerous drugs and medical products, automobile and truck accidents and oil and gas litigation. For more information, please contact John David Hart at 800.961.4278 or johnhart@hartlaw.com or http://www.hiprecallinfo.com/ EXTENDED STAY: Wexler Wallace Files Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wexler Wallace LLP recently filed a class action lawsuit against HVM L.L.C. d/b/a Extended Stay Hotels, alleging that Extended Stay seeks to avoid landlord-tenant laws by requiring its long-term residents to enter into a "Long-Term Lodging Agreement" every 29 days and 20 hours. The Plaintiff alleges that, by doing this, Extended Stay Hotels intends to prevent its long-term residents from obtaining tenant rights under California law, which vest after 30 days of continuous occupancy. The suit also seeks relief on behalf of a proposed class of long- term residents who were allegedly subjected to repeated and unlawful lockouts by Extended Stay after failing to pay rent or re-register under the residential agreement. The complaint states that long-term residents were locked out of their rooms with their possessions inside, without written notice or access to the unlawful detainer process. The Plaintiff has lived at Extended Stay for over 5 years and was reportedly subjected to dozens of lockouts without being offered tenant protections afforded under California law. The case, entitled Soroka v. HVM L.L.C. d/b/a Extended Stay Hotels, Case No. 2:10-cv-02883-WBS-CMK (TEMP) is currently pending in the Eastern District of California. According to Ian J. Barlow at Wexler Wallace LLP, "Extended Stay's residential agreements are carefully designed to prevent long-term residents from becoming tenants. Unlike typical hotels, many of these residents are not short-term guests, vacationers or business travelers -- Extended Stay is their primary residence. Extended Stay is their home. Many long-term residents live at Extended Stay with their spouses, significant others and with their children. However, Extended Stay seeks to bypass the unlawful detainer process, lock them out of their rooms without notice and a hearing, and forego its responsibility to treat these residents as tenants." Extended Stay filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint on Dec. 20, 2010. The United States District Court denied Extended Stay's request in full on Feb. 8, 2011. Wexler Wallace LLP -- http://www.wexlerwallace.com/-- prosecutes class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of individual and business clients in state and federal courts throughout the United States. The firm is based in Chicago, Illinois, and maintains its west coast office in Sacramento, California. FORD MOTOR: Expands Vehicle Recall Over Air Bag Failure ------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Bennett, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Ford Motor Co. is expanding a vehicle recall to include 1.2 million F-150 pickup trucks and Lincoln Mark LT vehicles amid safety concerns over unintended air bag deployments. The auto maker is recalling certain 2004 through 2006 model year F-150s and 2006 model year Lincoln Mark LTs. The company said there is a possibility that a wire could short-circuit and trigger the airbags to deploy, resulting in injuries. The recall includes about 16,000 Lincoln Mark LTs; the company no longer produces the vehicle. The voluntary move dramatically expands Ford's original F-150 announcement in February when the company notified NHTSA it needed to recall 144,000 pickups. Ford originally argued with NHTSA saying the 144,000 recall would be enough to cover the affected vehicles. But it recently agreed to the NHTSA's request. "We understand the government's desire to reach a broad group of potentially affected consumers and will recall the remaining population of trucks for our customers' peace of mind," Ford spokesman Wes Sherwood said in a statement. Owners will be notified and told where to take their vehicles for repair. This is now the fourth recall Ford has made in the past three months. Ford recalled about 35,000 vehicles, such as Rangers, in the U.S. and Canada over possible electrical shorts and fuel leaks that could cause fires in March. It also recalled 280,000 F-150 pickups to repair faulty door handles in February. GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Actions in Four States Over Yo-Plus -------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Loth, writing for Twin Cities Business, reports that the company is being sued in four states -- California, Ohio, Florida, and New Jersey -- over the marketing and advertising of its Yoplait Yo-Plus Yogurt, which claims to have digestive health benefits. Claims made by Golden Valley-based General Mills about how its Yoplait Yo-Plus Yogurt naturally regulates digestive health have landed the company in court in four states. The manufacturing giant is facing class-action suits in California, Ohio, Florida, and New Jersey. The suits claim that the company's marketing and advertising of its Yo-Plus Yogurt is " "false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public." The Yo-Plus yogurt hit the market in 2007 and, according to marketing materials, is "the only yogurt on the market with Optibalance, which helps put digestion back on track." The plaintiffs -- who are being represented by Florida law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP -- argue that the company has no support for some of the claims it makes, including that that Yo-Plus naturally regulates digestive health and provides consumers with additional digestive health benefits that other yogurt products do not. "In fact, General Mills has never tested Yo-Plus for its ability to deliver the unique health benefits claimed in its advertising campaign," the Ohio suit said. "Nonetheless, as a result of General Mills' deceptive advertising campaign, General Mills charges a premium for Yo-Plus." Two of the four suits -- those filed in California and Florida -- have already been certified as class-action suits and the other two -- filed in Ohio and New Jersey -- are in the process of seeking certification. The plaintiffs have requested a jury trial and are seeking unspecified compensatory damages. "We're happy to let a jury decide whether or not this advertising campaign is unfair and deceptive to consumers," Cullin O'Brien, Esq. -- cobrien@rgrdlaw.com -- an attorney with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, told Twin Cities Business on April 14. In an e-mailed statement, General Mills said that it has a standing practice of not commenting on pending litigation. But in court documents, the company denies the allegations that its advertising and marketing of Yo-Plus is deceptive. General Mills isn't the first company to face class-action litigation regarding claims made about the benefits of yogurt products. Last year, White Plains, New York-based Dannon reportedly paid $45 million to settle a similar class-action suit regarding its Activia and DanActive Yogurt Products. General Mills is Minnesota's eighth-largest public company based on revenue, which totaled $14.8 billion during its most recently completed fiscal year. LONDON, UK: Kettling of G20 Protester Illegal, Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------- Lesley Ciarula Taylor, writing for The Toronto Start, reports that the kettling of G20 protesters in London was illegal, a British High Court has ruled in a case with sweeping implications in Toronto. The decision on April 14 by the Queen's Bench justices said police were working "in good faith" but still overreacted when they corralled 4,500 people inside a Climate Camp in London for three hours on April 1, 2009. "The police may only take such preventive action as a last resort catering for situations about to descend into violence," the Queen's Bench justices. "The test of necessity is met only in truly extreme and exceptional cases." "This is groundbreaking," lawyer John Halford, representing the claimants Hannah McClure and Josh Moos, told the Toronto Star. "Never has there been a judicial review challenging a mass use of force by a lot of officers at once." This was "the blunt instrument being used when a scalpel is available," he said. "It is not necessary to make thousands of others suffer because police can't be bothered to arrest the ones who are responsible." "This case is very important and will be used by us in the court," said Murray Klippenstein, who has filed a $45 million class action lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board over the G20 in Toronto last June. Office administrator Sherry Good is representing everyone wrongfully arrested, detained, imprisoned or held by police on June 26 or 27. Good had been among about 200 protesters and bystanders boxed in by police for four hours on June 27 in a downpour at Queen St. and Spadina Ave. The British ruling "is not legally binding but would be persuasive," said Mr. Klippenstein. "The underlying principles that balance freedom to speak publicly in the street go back a long way in Canada and Britain. "The words the court used are quite strong in defending freedoms that should not be encroached upon just for the convenience of the police," he said. "There is a great deal of similarity between the two cases. We see precisely the principles of our Sherry Good class action." According to the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, thousands of people may now sue Scotland Yard for false imprisonment in relation to the London kettling incident. Toronto police spokesman Mark Pugash told the Star: "It's not appropriate to comment" on a court decision in a "foreign jurisdiction." Toronto police said at the time they believed violent demonstrators with the Black Bloc were inside the Queen and Spadina crowd. The day before, black-clad demonstrators had smashed their way up Yonge St. during a demonstration against the G20 economic summit. The British case was particularly unusual in that the justices insisted on questioning Metropolitan Police Services Chief Supt. Michael Johnson themselves even though he had already given a statement. Johnson told the justices police feared violent demonstrators at London's Royal Exchange 500 meters away would infiltrate and disrupt the peaceful Climate Camp. At 7:07 p.m., police surrounded, or kettled, the camp. Nobody could leave. Also at issue was the police "shield strikes," jabbing riot shields at a crowd 15-deep to shove them back 30 meters. That, the justices declared, "was not necessary or proportionate." The justices, who included president of the Queen's Bench division Sir Anthony May, stopped short of declaring kettling itself unlawful. Still, London's Metropolitan Police Service said on April 14 it will appeal. "At the heart of this case lies a vital public order policing tactic," the MPS said in a statement. The Climate Camp kettling "prevented further scenes of violence and criminal damage," the London police force said. A cordon keeping violent protesters out might have been necessary, the High Court ruled, but one keeping people in the Climate Camp wasn't. "There had been no disorder or violence at the Climate Camp, not even when 200-300 so-called hardcore protesters joined at around 4:40 p.m.," The court declared. "At 7:07 p.m., there was no breach of peace, imminent or otherwise." Mr. Halford said he's confident "we can hold the victory" under appeal. "The police didn't use kettling until recently," said Mr. Halford. "Police have managed to police without resorting to this as long as there have been large demonstrations in the capitals of cities. It isn't necessary. "It's used increasingly in more and more peaceful demonstrations which are just inconvenient. As in Toronto, the McClure-Moos case is a class action, said Mr. Halford. "There were 4,500 people within the kettle. Each of them is equally a victim." The Toronto class action suit will likely reach the certification stage in Spring 2012, Mr. Klippenstein said. "It is clear that can only be a last resort when situations are about to descend into violence," said Mr. Klippenstein. "We continue to believe this was frankly illegal and does require the court to say so." Nearly 10 months later, he said, "Sherry Good is still nervous walking in public down the street." LOS ANGELES: Syphillis Treatment Disclosure Order Overturned ------------------------------------------------------------ Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that an order requiring the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center to disclose the names of persons it treated for syphilis to the counsel for plaintiffs in a class action over the treatment was overturned on April 13 by this district's Court of Appeal. Div. One, in an opinion by Justice Jeffrey Johnson, said the class members, who were allegedly treated with a drug that is not recommended for such treatment, have privacy rights and privileges that must be taken into consideration. The court did, however, approve the trial court's order that all members of the certified class be included in the action unless they affirmatively opt out. Four named plaintiffs sued in 2005, alleging that between 1999 and 2004, the center treated approximately 663 patients with Bicillian C-R, a mixture of short and long-acting penicillin, rather than with Bicillin L-A, which is composed of wholly long-acting penicillin and is the proper form of the drug for syphilis treatment. The center learned in March 2004 that it had used the wrong drug and began a publicity campaign to advise the public of the error and offer retesting and retreatment to those affected. About two- thirds of the patients availed themselves of the offer. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification of their action for negligence and breach of warranty was denied by the trial court, but the Court of Appeal reversed last year. On remand, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Hess established an opt-out procedure for class members who did not want to participate in the litigation, rejecting a defense objection that the procedure would invade the constitutional right of privacy and the doctor-patient privilege. The judge ordered the center to provide the plaintiffs a master list of class members with addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses, but ordered that class members be referred to by an assigned number, rather than by name, in any public filing. The Court of Appeal on April 13 granted a writ of mandate requiring that further measures be undertaken to protect patient confidentiality, but denied relief with respect to the opt-out procedure. The justice explained: "We recognize the benefits of a class action do not as readily accrue where members must affirmatively join the class. Here, the putative class members are those seeking free medical advice, and only approximately two-thirds of them responded to the Center's explanation of the error in medication and sought free retreatment. It is less likely that such members would affirmatively seek to join a class. Without the mandatory joinder effect of an opt-out class action, the Center will not obtain res judicata effect of a judgment; small individual class plaintiffs will not obtain the benefit of a settlement; and the cost of administering many small actions will not be avoided." He continued: "Nonetheless, the Center points out that it has been more than six years since the error in medication, and if small class plaintiffs had wanted to come forward and file individual suits, they would have. This fact only underscores the point that the class plaintiffs in this action are likely of limited means and have limited access with which to pursue their claims judicially. A class action in which they automatically become participants benefits them." With respect to privacy and privileged communications, however, Johnson said the names of class members should not be disclosed to the plaintiffs, and that doctor-patient communications could not be disclosed absent a waiver. The proper procedure, he said, is that the patient information should be disclosed only to a court- appointed administrator for the purpose of sending notice. The case is Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian v. Superior Court (Bomersheim), B228853. MATCH.COM: Exposes Women to Sexual Predators, Calif. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Match.com's dating Web site provides sexual predators access to more victims, a woman who says she was raped by a man with six sex convictions, whom she met through the site, claims in a Los Angeles Superior Court class action. NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, five retired NFL players say the NFL Players Association breached its fiduciary duty by failing to pursue licensing agreements for retirees and failing to pay them a percentage of revenue. Lead plaintiff Bob Grant says the class action is filed on behalf of retired NFL players who were not members of the class in a similar 2007 complaint, Adderley et al. v. NFLPA. "In the Adderley action, plaintiffs alleged, and the jury found, that the NFLPA breached a fiduciary duty to the Adderley class by failing to pursue licensing opportunities on behalf of the retired players, concentrating its efforts instead on current players," the complaint states. Named plaintiffs Grant, Clinton Jones, Walter Roberts III, Marvin Cobb and Bernard Parrish seek an accounting and damages for breach of fiduciary duty. A copy of the Complaint in Grant, et al. v. National Football League Players Association, et al., Case No. 11-cv-03118 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/14/NFLPA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. Maryann R. Marzano, Esq. Howard K. Alperin, Esq. T. Giovanni "John" Arbucci, Esq. Alyson C. Decker, Esq. BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334 Telephone: (213) 622-4222 E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com mmarzano@blechercollins.com halperin@blechercollins.com jarbucci@blechercollins.com adecker@blechercollins.com REDBOX AUTOMATED: Suit Over Excessive Late Fees Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that there has been no action since January in a proposed class action over the late fees charged by the owner of RedBox video rental kiosks commonly found at grocery and other stores. The last action in the suit led by lead plaintiff Laurie Piechur came in late January when attorney Jeffrey Millar joined the plaintiffs' team. Ms. Piechur proposes to lead a class of Redbox customers who allege the company violated the law in charging excessive late fees. The suit seeks damages in excess of $350,000 and other relief. The case has not been certified to date. Redbox Automated Retail LLC has been unsuccessful in its attempt to have the case dismissed. Redbox denies the suit's claims. If certified, Ms. Piechur would lead a class with members in Illinois, California, Wisconsin and other states. Mr. Millar joins Thomas and Peter Maag and others in representing Piechur. Eric Brandfonbrener and Robert Sprague represent Redbox. The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-562. TEVA PHARMA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Laquinimod Results ----------------------------------------------------------- Tzameret Pernat, writing for Globes, reports that a Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. shareholder on April 14 filed a request for a NIS2 billion class-action lawsuit against the company, claiming that it provided misleading information about the publication of the results of the Phase III clinical trial of its oral multiple sclerosis treatment, Laquinimod. In the statement of claim, the claimant says that, on April 11, Teva notified the TASE that it would present new information about the results of a study on drugs and treatments for multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease, among other things. The claimant says that the notice stated that the information would be presented at the American Association of Neurology Annual Meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii. The statement of claims says that 30% of Teva's revenue comes from its multiple sclerosis treatments, especially sales of Copaxone, which totaled $3.3 billion in 2010. The claimants says that since the Copaxone market has been opened to competition, which will severely affect Teva's sales, Teva began development of Laquinimod to compensate for the drop in its profits and to keep its share of the market for multiple sclerosis drugs. The claimant says that Teva first presented to the 5,000 participants at the conference a synopsis of the results of the clinical trials without notifying the public, and contravening its notice to the TASE, which stated that the information would be published at later dates. He claims that, as a result, participants at the conference obtained an unfair advantage over all other Teva shareholders. He also claims that, as a result, rumors spread about the results of the trial, which caused Teva's share price to fall 3.4%. The claimant says that Teva lent its hand to a situation in which crucial information about it, and which could substantially affect the value of its shares, was liable to leak, as in fact happened, and in a manner that would cause it to be abused, as in fact happened. The claimant says that Teva was negligent and that its fault misled investors and that this is reason for the lawsuit. Teva has not yet filed a statement of defense. Teva said in response, "Teva acts, including in this case, in accordance with the Securities Law and reporting requirements that apply to it. Teva has not received the statement of claim, and when it arrives, Teva will study it. On the face of it, however, based on information published in the media on Thursday, it appears that the lawsuit and request to recognize it as a class- action suit, are baseless." Teva's share price rose 0.8% on Nasdaq on April 13 to $49.67, giving a market cap of $46.7 billion, and rose 1.3% by midday on the TASE on April 14 to NIS170.70. URBAN ACTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Conduct ------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Turner, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed last week against Urban Active, alleging the chain of fitness clubs violated Ohio consumer-protection laws. The lawsuit, which was filed in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, says that Urban Active engages in a pattern of unfair and deceptive conduct in violation of Ohio consumer-protection laws. Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease filed the action on behalf of Amber Gascho, of Powell, who said in the lawsuit that she was told she could cancel her personal training contract for a $10 fee, but when she tried to end the contract, was told instead the charge would be $250. The suit also alleges that the company: failed to provide consumers with a copy of personal-training contracts at they time they signed them; failed to tell consumers of their rights to cancel the contract within three days; failed to provide consumers with notice of cancellation forms; misrepresented the terms of contract cancellation; and didn't honor consumers' notices of cancellation. The suit wants the company to stop violating the law and to provide compensation to affected consumers. Those covered by the suit would include any Urban Active customer who has purchased a personal training contract or services in Ohio since Nov. 1, 2007. A call to John Gragg, general counsel for Global Fitness Holdings LLC, the Lexington, Ky., franchiser that operates the Urban Fitness locations in Ohio and six other states, was not immediately returned. The legal action comes as the company, which has eight locations in central Ohio, was given an "F" rating by the Better Business Bureau of Central Ohio after more than 200 members filed complaints in the past year. Most of the complaints allege billing errors, with the majority from consumers who said funds still were being withdrawn from their credit-card or bank accounts after their contract had expired or been canceled, said BBB spokeswoman Joan Coughlin. She said that 77% of all the complaints it received in the past year regarding the fitness-club industry were about Urban Active. USA FAR OCEAN: Faces Class Action Over "U-Prosta" False Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court class action claims USA Far Ocean Group, of Alhambra, continues to sell "U-Prosta" with false claims, despite an FDA recall for its undeclared terazosin hydrochloride, which has dangerous side effects. VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Wolumla Residents Mull Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Steve Strevens, writing for Bega District News, reports that legal action is on the agenda of the Wolumla Residents Action Group with the community investigating a class action through the law firm of Slater and Gordon. "Slater and Gordon have recently had success against a council in Victoria," WRAG spokesman Jeff Smith said. "And they want to hear what we have to say so they can indicate what services they can offer." Mr. Smith said the main issue was land valuations. "One property has been devalued by 20% and while not everyone will be at that level, there will still be an effect on properties. "The only way to test the waters is to have it looked at." Mr. Smith said it was "early days yet, but we are keen to see where it takes us". He said the priorities for any lawsuit would be to have the proposal stopped; the second is compensation for the loss of property values while a third "down the track" would be compensation for any health issues that might arise. If it is true what people are saying and that others are contemplating lawsuits of their own, Mr. Smith said it would be the community who pays. "The ratepayer will cop it to defend any action and if there's any compensation if the council loses, then the ratepayers would have to cop that as well." A teleconference by Slater and Gordon with the community will be held on April 20 at 4:00 p.m. People wishing to register for the conference should call 1800 555 777 and choose option four. WAL-MART STORES: Overtime Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that former Wal-Mart employees suffered a setback in their attempt to sue the company for misclassifying certain workers as exempt from overtime. The plaintiffs had claimed that asset protection coordinators merit overtime pay since the position does not entail managerial duties. But Wal-Mart said the plaintiffs' work experiences did not reflect those of most coordinators, and submitted declarations by 23 coordinators to support its argument that the position has managerial components. Allowing plaintiffs to proceed with a collective action "would require an individualized inquiry as to whether the tasks in fact performed by each putative collective action member are or were similar to the tasks that plaintiffs claim they performed," Judge Thomas O'Neill Jr. ruled in a 17-page opinion on April 12. It would be intolerably onerous to determine whether potential members of the class were misclassified as overtime-exempt on a case-by-case basis, the judge found, rejecting the bid for conditional collective certification. Wal-Mart asset production coordinators generally handle programs aimed at shrink reduction, compliance and safety. A copy of the Order in Bramble, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-04932 (E.D. Pa.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/14/walmart.pdf WASHINGTON, DC: MWAA Faces Class Action in Virginia Over Tolls -------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Hollingsworth, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that a no-taxation-without-representation class action lawsuit was filed in Alexandria's federal court on April 14 challenging the authority of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to collect tolls on the Dulles Toll Road in excess of what's needed for road operation and maintenance. Virginia attorneys Robert Cynkar, Christopher Kachouroff and Patrick McSweeney sued MWAA on behalf of John Corr of Great Falls and John Grigsby, of Hillsboro, Va., both longtime residents of Virginia and toll road users. Since the 13-member MWAA Board is made up of unelected political appointees who are not accountable to voters, it does not have the power to impose what amounts to a tax under either the Virginia or U.S. Constitutions, the lawsuit claims. "The voters sent a very clear signal that they did not want to be taxed to fund the Metrorail Project," the lawsuit points out, "In November 2002, a referendum to impose a sales and use tax in Northern Virginia that would produce $350 million for the Metrorail Project was voted down." In 2005, the Commonwealth Transportation Board "began the practice of converting what is supposed to be a legitimate user fee into a tax," deliberately setting toll levels "far in excess of amounts needed to pay for the operation and maintenance of the Dulles Toll Road plus reasonable payments for the debt incurred to construct or improve" it. The toll road was later transferred to MWAA. Taxing is a legislative function, and "the Virginia General Assembly has never enacted legislation that delegates to MWAA the power to set the tolls." Even if lawmakers wanted to do so, the lawsuit maintains, they "could not delegate a toll-setting power to MWAA because MWAA is an entity completely outside of the governments of the Commonwealth." Plaintiffs are asking that any tolls collected after the 2005 toll increase be returned to toll road users. The amounts are enormous, estimated at $64 million in 2010 alone. ********* 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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, 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 * * *