/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110516.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 16, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 95
Headlines
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: High Court Refuses to Remand Case to 5th Cir.
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Final Approval Hearing Scheduled for July 25
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Seeks Dismissal of "Deepwater Horizon" Suit
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Discovery Ongoing in "Tronox" Class Action
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Mulls Sanctions Against Class Action Firm
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: May 31 Deadline Set for Compliance Disputes
DIAL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Antibacterial Hand Wash
DUCOMMUN INCORPORATED: Defends Five Labarge Merger-Related Suits
FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Using Children's Photos and Likeness in Ads
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Spark Plugs
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Enters Stipulation to Resolve Class Action
HARTE HANKS: Class Suit vs. Shoppers Unit Remains Pending
HUMANA INC: Still Defends "Sacred Heart" Class Suit in Florida
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Continues to Defend "Hui Zhao" Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls 11,700 HIV/AIDS Drug Prezista
LOEWS CORPORATION: Enters Stipulation to Settle "Insurers" Lawsuit
M/I HOMES: Still Defending "Chinese Drywall" Claims
MACLAREN USA: Recalls 1 Million Strollers Over Injury Hazard
MEDIFAST INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
MEIJER INC: Recalls 17,400 Infant Slipper Socks
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend "Howell" Suit
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Motion to Dismiss "Silverman" Suit Is Pending
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Two Derivative Suits Remain Pending in Ill.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Appeal in "Goldfein" Suit Remains Pending
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Appeal in "St. Lucie" Suit Remains Pending
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Time to Appeal "Waber" Suit Dismissal Passed
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Certification Motion Pending in Plan Suit
NCR CORP: Settlement Pay in "Death Benefits" Suit Set This Month
NORTHERN STATES: "Robarge" Suit vs. Unit is now Concluded
PPG INDUSTRIES: Reaches Final Settlement Pacts in Antitrust Suits
SOLICITORS FROM HELL: May Face Class Action Suit From Law Society
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 10th Suit Over Private Data Breach
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 11th Suit Over Private Data Breach
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 12th Suit Over Private Data Breach
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 13th Suit Over Private Data Breach
SYNGENTA CROP: Plaintiffs in Atrazine Suit Seek Schedule Changes
TARGET CORP: Class Action Over Airborne Supplement Inactive
TELSTAR PRODUCTS: Recalls 317,000 Energy-Saving Light Bulbs
THE DAVEY TREE: Court Sets Jan. 30 Trial for "Meals" Class Suit
UJ TRADING: Recalls 18,500 Knight Hawk Toy Helicopters
WAL-MART STORES: Cuban Warehouse Workers May File Class Action
*********
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., continues to defend itself against an
antitrust lawsuit purporting to be a class action, according to
the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.
The Company and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of A&B, were named as defendants in a consolidated
civil lawsuit purporting to be a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. The
lawsuit alleged violations of the antitrust laws and also named as
a defendant Horizon Lines, Inc., another domestic shipping carrier
operating in the Hawaii and Guam trades. On August 18, 2009, the
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with
leave to amend the complaint to allege claims consistent with the
court's order. On May 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint. On November 30, 2010, the judge dismissed the
complaint with prejudice. On December 22, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The
Company and Matson will continue to vigorously defend themselves
in this lawsuit. The Company is unable to predict, at this time,
the outcome or financial impact, if any, of this lawsuit if an
amended complaint is filed.
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: High Court Refuses to Remand Case to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition to remand a
putative class action to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
according to American Electric Power Company, Inc.'s May 3, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.
In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina. The Fifth
Circuit held that there was no exclusive commitment of the common
law issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate branch
of government and that no initial policy determination was
required to adjudicate these claims. The court granted petitions
for rehearing. An additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit
without a quorum to reconsider the decision and the appeal was
dismissed, leaving the district court's decision in place.
Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the
court to remand the case to the Fifth Circuit and reinstate the
panel decision. The petition was denied in January 2011.
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Final Approval Hearing Scheduled for July 25
------------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing of the new settlement in a class action
lawsuit filed against Ameriprise Financial, Inc., is scheduled for
July 25, 2011, according to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.
In July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests (Medical
Capital Holdings, Inc./Medical Capital Corporation and affiliated
corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and affiliated
corporations) sold by the Company's subsidiary Securities America,
Inc. were the subject of SEC actions (brought against those
entities and individuals associated with them), which has resulted
in the filing of several putative class action lawsuits naming
both SAI and Ameriprise Financial, as well as related regulatory
inquiries. Approximately $400 million of Medical Capital and
Provident Shale investments made by SAI clients are outstanding
and currently in default. Medical Capital and Provident Royalties
are both in receivership. On January 26, 2010, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts filed an Administrative Complaint against SAI, which
is being adjudicated in an administrative hearing that is expected
to conclude during the second quarter of 2011. A significant
volume of FINRA arbitrations were brought against SAI. Several of
them were individually settled, and there was one adverse ruling.
The putative class actions and arbitrations generally allege
violations of state and/or federal securities laws in connection
with SAI's sales of these private placement interests. These
actions were commenced in September 2009 and thereafter. The
Medical Capital-related class actions were centralized and moved
to the Central District of California by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under the
caption "In re: Medical Capital Securities Litigation." The
Provident Shale-related class actions remain pending in Texas
federal court. On June 22, 2010, the Liquidating Trustee of the
Provident Liquidating Trust filed an adversary action in the
Provident bankruptcy proceeding naming SAI on behalf of both the
Provident Liquidating Trust and a number of individual Provident
investors who are alleged to have assigned their claims. The
Liquidating Trustee Action generally alleges the same types of
claims as are alleged in the Provident class actions as well as a
claim under the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Trustee Action
has been moved from bankruptcy court to the Texas federal court
with the other Provident class actions. On January 24, 2011, the
Medical Capital Class Action was temporarily transferred to the
federal court for the Northern District of Texas (the Court),
where the Provident class action is pending, so that coordinated
settlement negotiations can be conducted under that single Court's
supervision. On February 17, 2011, the named plaintiffs to the
class actions filed with the Court a Settlement Agreement and
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,
seeking the Court's approval of agreed-upon settlement terms. That
settlement was recorded as a subsequent event to the 2010 fourth
quarter and reflected in the Company's audited 2010 financial
statements. On March 18, 2011, the Court declined to grant
preliminary approval of that settlement. On April 15, 2011, SAI
and its holding company, Securities America Financial Corporation,
entered into new settlement agreements which, in exchange for
release of pending arbitration and litigation claims (including
certain class action claims pending against the Company and the
claims brought by the Liquidating Trustee), provide for the
payment of a total of $150 million, $40 million of which was
previously reported and charged to the Company's fourth quarter
2010 results. The combined settlements, together with other
provisions for claims relating to Medical Capital or Provident
Royalties resulted in a $118 million pre-tax expense in the
Company's first quarter 2011 results. The new settlements are
subject to certain conditions, including participation
requirements for claimants to be covered by the settlements, and
preliminary and final review and Court approval of the class
action settlement. A preliminary approval hearing was held by the
Court on April 29, 2011, and the judge indicated that a final
approval hearing would be scheduled for July 25, 2011.
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Seeks Dismissal of "Deepwater Horizon" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation's motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit related to the "Deepwater Horizon" events remains pending,
according to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.
In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, in which
Anadarko holds a 25% non-operating leasehold interest, discovered
hydrocarbon accumulations. During suspension operations, the well
blew out, an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling
rig, and the drilling rig sank, resulting in the release of
hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven people lost their
lives in the explosion and subsequent fire, and others sustained
personal injuries. The Macondo well was permanently plugged on
September 19, 2010. Response and cleanup efforts are being
conducted by BP Exploration & Production Inc., the operator and
65% owner of the Macondo lease, and by other parties.
Investigations by the federal government and other parties into
the cause of the well blowout, explosion, and resulting oil spill,
as well as other matters arising from or relating to these events,
are ongoing.
Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August
2010 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York District Court) on behalf of purported
purchasers of the Company's stock between June 12, 2009, and
June 9, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers. The
complaints allege causes of action arising pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and
omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's liability
related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest
thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. In November 2010,
the New York District Court consolidated the two cases and
appointed The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and
Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin
Islands (Virgin Islands Group) to act as Lead Plaintiff. In
January 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended
Complaint. Prior to filing its Consolidated Amended Complaint, the
Lead Plaintiff requested leave from the New York District Court to
transfer this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. The Company opposes the Lead
Plaintiff's request to transfer the case to the District Court for
the Southern District of Texas. The parties have submitted briefs
to the New York District Court concerning the transfer of venue
issue. In March 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint of the Lead Plaintiff and in April
2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to
dismiss.
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Discovery Ongoing in "Tronox" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery process in the class action lawsuit filed by
purchasers of Tronox, Inc.'s securities against Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation, among others, is still ongoing, according to the
Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.
A consolidated class action complaint has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York District Court) on behalf of purported purchasers of Tronox,
Inc.'s equity and debt securities between November 21, 2005, and
January 12, 2009 (Class Period), against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee,
several former Kerr-McGee officers and directors, several former
Tronox officers and directors, and Ernst & Young LLP. The
complaint alleges causes of action arising under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)
for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other
things, Tronox's environmental-remediation and tort claim
liabilities. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that these
purported misstatements and omissions are contained in certain of
Tronox's public filings, including filings made in connection with
Tronox's initial public offering. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest
thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs. Anadarko, Kerr-
McGee and other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint and in August 2010 moved to dismiss an amended
consolidated class action complaint that had been filed in July
2010. The New York District Court issued the second of two
opinions and orders on the motions (Orders). Following the Orders,
only the plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims under the Exchange Act
remain against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee. The plaintiffs' claims
against Anadarko are limited to the period beginning on August 10,
2006, through the end of the Class Period. The discovery process
is ongoing.
Given that discovery and motion practice are still underway in the
Tronox proceedings, these matters are at a relatively early stage
in the litigation process; accordingly, the Company currently
cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate a
range of any potential losses related to the proceedings described
above. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself, its
officers, and its directors in these proceedings.
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Mulls Sanctions Against Class Action Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that with a fresh legal victory in hand, BankAtlantic Bancorp is
seeking sanctions against the securities class action law firms
that sued it.
In April, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro overturned a jury
verdict from last year and ruled in favor of the Fort Lauderdale-
based bank holding company. Although the jury found that bank
executives made misleading statements, the judge said there was
not sufficient evidence to prove those statements caused damages
to shareholders.
On May 5, BankAtlantic Bancorp and its attorney, Eugene Stearns,
Esq., of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson,
P.A. in Miami, filed a motion for sanctions against lead
plaintiffs State-Boston Retirement System and Erie County
Employees Retirement System and their attorneys, New York-based
Labaton Sucharow LLP, and New York-based Barroway Topaz Kessler
Meltzer & Check LLP. If the bank is successful, it could make the
plaintiffs' attorneys pay its legal fees, which run into the
millions of dollars.
Mr. Stearns argued that the entire case was frivolous because the
plaintiffs had no grounds to make their claims, and they used
false testimony from former BankAtlantic employees that were
initially included as confidential witnesses.
When the lawsuit was filed in 2007, the claims included insider
trading against BankAtlantic Bancorp Chairman and CEO Alan Levan
and Vice Chairman John Abdo, as well as claims of accounting fraud
and loan loss reserve misstatements. Those claims were tossed
during the summary judgment phase. Mr. Stearns said the
plaintiffs had no evidence to bring them.
Judge Ungaro initially dismissed the class action lawsuit because
the allegations by confidential former BankAtlantic employees were
not specific enough. The plaintiffs refiled the complaint with
more detailed allegations, and the judge allowed it to continue.
None of those former employees testified at the trial last year.
After discovering the identity of those employees and reviewing
their interview transcripts, BankAtlantic determined that much of
the testimony attributed to them in the plaintiffs' complaint was
false, according to the motion for sanctions. In one case, a
former BankAtlantic employee was working in the small business
lending department, not the commercial loan division, which was
the focus of the case. Some statements attributed to former
employees in the complaint appeared to contradict their statements
to investigators, according to the motion for sanctions.
"It is quite stunning that lawyers who use the word fraud so
frequently to describe the people they sue would themselves
utilize fraud in the hopes of finding it," Mr. Stearns wrote in
his motion for sanctions. "We now know that virtually all of the
material facts attributed to the confidential witnesses are
untrue, and that plaintiffs should have known they were untrue at
that time."
Mark Arisohn, Esq., the lead attorney in the case for Labaton
Sucharow, said he would file the opposition to the sanctions
motions today, May 16. The next step for the plaintiffs is to
appeal the judgment.
Mr. Stearns also said the plaintiffs' claims that BankAtlantic
made false statements about its loan portfolio were baseless
because the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings
made it clear that a downturn in the Florida real estate market
would cause significant losses for the bank. That's just what
happened, and those public disclosures were accurate, he said.
"Although defendants now have a final judgment in their favor, it
does little to ameliorate the massive costs, financial and
otherwise, caused by claims and allegations of fraud that were
themselves a product of fraud," Mr. Stearns said in his motion for
sanctions. "The damage they caused continues, as does the doubt
they falsely created. During the years these false claims were
pending, the banking system as a whole teetered on the verge of
collapse, as unemployment reached staggering levels and property
values plummeted. Bancorp was compelled to raise equity capital
to offset a continuing hemorrhage of loan losses caused by these
economic events. The litigation costs and adverse publicity
increased the cost of that capital significantly. Now, finally,
is the time for plaintiffs to answer for their behavior."
Not long after winning the ruling, BankAtlantic Bancorp announced
a stock offering that was set to begin on May 12.
BankAtlantic Bancorp's attorney may be reached at:
Eugene E. Stearns
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
Museum Tower
150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: 305-789-3200
E-mail: estearns@stearnsweaver.com
Plaintiffs' attorney may be reached at:
Mark S. Arisohn
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: 212-907-0840
E-mail: marisohn@labaton.com
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: May 31 Deadline Set for Compliance Disputes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Berry, writing for American Medical News, reports that a
major class-action settlement between physicians and most of the
country's nonprofit BlueCross BlueShield-affiliated plans will
expire May 31.
The American Medical Association urged physicians in an April 25
practice management alert to check their contracts with Blues
plans to see if the expiration will affect their practices.
The settlement ended class-action cases consolidated from a series
of lawsuits filed by physicians in multiple states against the
Blues and other large health insurers between 1999 and 2000.
Physicians alleged that the insurers, including Aetna, Cigna,
Health Net, Humana and WellPoint, conspired to reduce or deny
payments for care, violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
WellPoint, a for-profit parent company that operates Blues plans
in 14 states, settled separately from the other Blues plans.
Settlement terms varied, but all required the insurers to pay
plaintiffs and change the claims-handling procedures that prompted
physicians to sue. Cases against UnitedHealth Group and Coventry
Health Care were dismissed.
Most of the country's Blues plans and the BlueCross BlueShield
Assn. signed on to the agreement. The plans did not admit
wrongdoing.
The Blues agreement, which included a $128 million payment to
physicians, required the plans to establish physician advisory
committees, revise their claims payment procedures and set up
independent review boards to arbitrate billing disputes.
The Blues settlement was finalized in April 2007, but the last
appeal wasn't dismissed until June 22, 2009.
Other than the collective Blues, the only plans operating under
settlement terms are two Pennsylvania-based Blues plans -- Capital
BlueCross and Highmark. Their settlements remain in effect until
2012, said Deborah Winegard, Esq., attorney and compliance dispute
facilitator.
The two plans settled later than others and were sanctioned for
delaying the cases against them by failing to turn over documents
to plaintiffs' attorneys for months, and in some cases a year.
Ms. Winegard said if physicians believe one of the Blues has
violated the agreement, they must file compliance disputes before
the May 31 expiration for her to take them up.
"If it is pending as of the time the settlement expires, we'll see
it through all the way to its conclusion, even if it's next year,"
Ms. Winegard said.
Some other companies, including Aetna and Humana, have voluntarily
extended their compliance with class-action settlement terms after
their agreements' expiration, but no Blues plans that settled have
said they will do so.
DIAL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Antibacterial Hand Wash
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Dial Corp.'s "Complete Antibacterial Hand Wash" contains
Triclosan, a suspected carcinogen.
A copy of the Complaint in Vogtland v. The Dial Corporation, Case
No. 11-cv-21658 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/11/Soap.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN ALONSO LLP
3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Telephone: (239) 390-1000
E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com
- and -
Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT
2220 Bonaventure Court
P.O. Box 1190
Alexandria, LA 71309
Telephone: (216) 621-8484
E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com
DUCOMMUN INCORPORATED: Defends Five Labarge Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ducommun Incorporated is defending itself in five putative class
actions relating to the Company's proposed merger transaction with
LaBarge, Inc., according to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 2, 2011.
Ducommun has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions filed in April 2011 by purported stockholders of LaBarge,
Inc. against LaBarge, its Board of Directors and Ducommun in
connection with Ducommun's proposed merger transaction with
LaBarge. Some of these actions also name DLBMS, Inc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Ducommun, formed for the purpose of effecting
the proposed transaction with LaBarge. Three of those stockholder
actions (filed by purported class representatives J. M. Foley,
Jr., William Wheeler and Doris A. Gastineau) are pending in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri and the other two
stockholder actions (filed by purported class representatives
Barry P. Borodkin and Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No.
14) are pending in the Delaware Chancery Court. These putative
class actions generally allege that the individual members of the
Board of Directors of LaBarge breached their fiduciary duties to
LaBarge stockholders with respect to the proposed merger
transaction announced on April 4, 2011. The five actions also
allege that Ducommun, DLBMS and LaBarge aided and abetted the
breach of fiduciary duties. The actions seek judicial
declarations that the merger agreement was entered into in breach
of the LaBarge directors' fiduciary duties, rescission of the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and the award
of attorneys' fees and expenses for the plaintiffs. In addition,
one of the Missouri actions and both of the Delaware actions
expressly seek injunctive relief to prevent the closing of the
proposed merger transaction between Ducommun and LaBarge.
Ducommun believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to
defend them vigorously.
Carson, Calif.-based Ducommun Inc., through its subsidiaries,
designs, engineers, and manufactures aerostructure and
electromechanical components and subassemblies.
FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Using Children's Photos and Likeness in Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
redOrbit reports that a lawsuit has been filed in Brooklyn federal
court accusing Facebook of using children's photographs and
likeness in ads without parental or guardian consent.
The class action suit was brought to court by Scott Nastro on
behalf of his son and all minors whose names or photos have been
used in "social ads" without parental consent.
Lee Squitieri, Esq., attorney representing Mr. Nastro, says in the
filing, "Facebook, Inc. has regularly and repeatedly used the
names and/or likenesses of plaintiff and the members of the Class
for the commercial purpose of marketing, advertising, selling and
soliciting the purchase of goods and services."
Social Ads was launched by Facebook in 2007, allowing the names
and pictures of a user's Facebook friends to show that they "like"
an ad, in which case these "like" ads can appear on a Facebook
page, or in a friend's news feed.
Although users can restrict the information from appearing in a
newsfeed, these settings do not allow them to block their names
and pictures from appearing on an advertising page once they click
the "like" button.
"Users can prevent their endorsements from being shared with their
friends by limiting who can see their posts through their privacy
settings," the complaint states.
It continues to say, "There is, however, no mechanism in place by
which a user can prevent their name and likeness from appearing on
a Facebook page if they have 'liked' it."
The lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that under the New York Civil
Rights Law, which prohibits companies from using a person's name
or photograph for advertising purposes without consent, using
underage Facebook members in these "social ads" constitutes
unauthorized endorsements.
The case also took issue that Facebook includes minors in its
"Friend Finder" service that recommends possible connections to
people in the online community of more than 500 million people,
reports AFP.
In response, Facebook spokesperson says, "We believe this suit is
completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously."
Currently, a similar lawsuit is pending in the state of
California, where parents of teenagers are accusing Facebook of
wrongly using children's names or likenesses by sharing their
"likes" at the social network with selected friends, reports AFP.
Mr. Squitieri and his clients are asking the judge to ban Facebook
from involving underage members with Social Ads or Friend Finder
and seek compensation in damages as well as any money generated
from these ads.
The case can be found in J.N. vs. Facebook, Inc., U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, No.11-cv-2128.
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Spark Plugs
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that a class action has been filed against Ford accusing the motor
company of profiting off of defective spark plugs.
Joshua Brewer filed a class action against Ford Motor Co. on May 6
in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division.
According to court documents, Mr. Brewer purchased a 2006 Ford
F150, which had defective spark plugs that could not be readily
removed when they need to be replaced.
The suit claims that when the defective spark plug is removed,
there is damage to the spark plug and to the engine because part
of the plug remains in the cylinder head.
Mr. Brewer alleges that the defect has resulted in class members
spending excessive amounts to change out spark plugs. Mr. Brewer
states he was charged $800 to change out five spark plugs, several
times the normal cost.
The vehicles at issue include 2005-2008 Ford Mustang, 2004-2008
Ford F-150, 2005-2008 Ford F-Super Duty Expedition, 2006-2008 Ford
Explorer, F-53 Ford Motorhome Chassis, 2007-2008 Ford Explorer
Sport Trac, 2005-2008 Lincoln Navigator, 2006-2008 Lincoln Mark LT
and 2006-2008 Mercury Mountaineer, according to the lawsuit.
Ford is accused of not conducting sufficient recalls, failing to
disclose known defects in the engines, failing to effectively
repair or replace the engines or parts and failing to reimburse.
Causes of action filed against Ford include negligence, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty
and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiff is seeking damages for out-of-pocket expenses
related to the cost to replace the spark plugs, deductibles paid
when repairs were covered by warranty, diminution in value of the
subject vehicles, economic losses, attorney's fees, interest and
court costs.
Mr. Brewer is represented by:
Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
WELLER, GREEN, TOUPS & TERRELL, L.L.P.
2615 Calder Street, Suite 400, P.O. Box 350
Beaumont, TX 77704
Telephone: 409-291-5140
- and -
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Cory S. Fein, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN, P.C.
1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1070
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: 713-581-8295
A jury trial is requested.
U.S. District Judge Thad Heartfield is assigned to the case.
Case No. 1:11-cv-00222
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Enters Stipulation to Resolve Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc., has entered into a stipulation with the
lead plaintiff of a class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.
Between 2003 and 2006, following industry-wide market timing and
late trading investigations by regulators, Franklin and certain
related parties were named in civil lawsuits. The lawsuits were
filed against Franklin and certain of its adviser and distributor
affiliates, individual Franklin officers and directors, a former
Franklin employee, and trustees of certain Franklin Templeton
Investments mutual funds. In 2004, the lawsuits were consolidated
for coordinated proceedings with similar lawsuits against numerous
other mutual fund complexes in a multi-district litigation titled
"In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation," pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 04-md-15862.
Plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints in the MDL on
September 29, 2004. The three consolidated lawsuits involving the
Company include a class action (Sharkey IRO/IRA v. Franklin
Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01310), a derivative
action on behalf of the Funds (McAlvey v. Franklin Resources,
Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01274), and a derivative action on
behalf of Franklin (Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04-cv-01624)
and seek, among other forms of relief, one or more of the
following: unspecified monetary damages; punitive damages; removal
of Fund trustees, directors, advisers, administrators, and
distributors; rescission of management contracts and distribution
plans under Rule 12b-1 promulgated under the Investment Company
Act of 1940; and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 25, 2005,
the Company-related defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action and Fund derivative action
complaints. On June 26, 2008, the court issued its order granting
in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint. In its order, the
court dismissed certain claims, while allowing others under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and under Sections 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 to remain, and dismissed all class action claims against
the named Funds. In addition, all named individual defendants have
since been dismissed without prejudice from the consolidated class
action pursuant to stipulation. The Company-related defendants
filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the consolidated
class action as to non-arranged market timing on March 24, 2010,
and lead plaintiff filed its opposition and cross-motion for
partial summary judgment on June 4, 2010. On December 9, 2010, the
court granted the Company-related defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment, finding that the record could not support a
finding of liability against the Company-related defendants and
denied lead plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
The Company and lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action
reached agreement-in-principle on December 21, 2010 to resolve
that action, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $2.75
million towards distribution of settlement amounts reached in lead
plaintiff's settlements with other, non-Company defendants, and
towards class counsel's fees, and any unspent amounts will be
distributed to relevant Funds. The parties documented the terms of
the agreement in a stipulation, which was filed with the court on
April 1, 2011. The Stipulation and Releases is subject to certain
conditions including court approval.
The Company-related defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
fund derivative action remains under submission with the court,
and, pursuant to stipulation, that action is currently stayed. In
addition, pursuant to stipulation, the derivative action brought
on behalf of Franklin has been stayed since 2004. Neither of those
derivative actions has progressed to discovery concerning alleged
damages and the Company is therefore unable to estimate an amount
or range of any possible additional losses relating to the market
timing lawsuits.
HARTE HANKS: Class Suit vs. Shoppers Unit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by former employees against Harte-
Hanks, Inc.'s unit remains pending, according to the Company's
May 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.
On January 25, 2010, Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (Shoppers), a
California corporation and a subsidiary of Harte-Hanks, Inc.,
reached an agreement in principle with Shoppers employee Frank
Gattuso and former employee Ernest Sigala, individually and on
behalf of a certified class, to settle and resolve a previously
disclosed class action lawsuit filed in 2001 (Frank Gattuso et al.
v. Harte-Hanks Inc. et al.) This agreement in principle has been
reduced to a class settlement agreement which has been executed by
the parties, but for which the trial court has not issued a final
approval order. Pursuant to the settlement agreement and subject
to certain conditions, Shoppers has agreed to establish a class
settlement fund of $7.0 million. In return, each member of the
class, including Gattuso and Sigala, has agreed to release all
claims against Shoppers and its affiliates that in any way arose
from or related to the matters which were the subject of, or could
have been the subject of, the claims alleged in the class action
lawsuit. Notices to the class members were sent in the first
quarter of 2011.
On March 23, 2001, Shoppers employee Frank Gattuso and former
employee Ernest Sigala filed a class action against Shoppers in
Los Angeles County Superior Court, claiming, among other related
allegations, that Shoppers failed to comply with California Labor
Code Section 2802, which requires an employer to indemnify
employees for expenses incurred on behalf of the employer. The
plaintiffs alleged that Shoppers failed to reimburse them for
expenses of using their automobiles as outside sales
representatives, and failed to accurately itemize these expenses
on plaintiffs' wage statements. The class, as certified by the
trial court, was limited to California Harte-Hanks outside sales
representatives who were not separately reimbursed apart from
their base salary and commissions for the expenses they incurred
in using their own automobiles after early 1998. The plaintiffs
sought indemnification and compensatory damages, statutory
damages, exemplary damages, penalties, interest, costs of suit,
and attorneys' fees. Shoppers filed a cross-complaint seeking a
declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs were indemnified for
their automobile expenses by the higher salaries and commissions
paid to them as outside sales representatives. On January 30,
2002, the trial court ruled that CLC 2802 requires employers to
reimburse employees for mileage and other expenses incurred in the
course of employment, but that an employer is permitted to pay
increased wages or commissions instead of indemnifying actual
expenses. On May 28, 2003, the trial court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. On October 27, 2005, the
California Court of Appeal issued a unanimous opinion affirming
the trial court's rulings, including the interpretation of CLC
2802 and denial of class certification. On November 23, 2005, the
Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. On
November 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's ruling that CLC 2802 permits lump sum reimbursement and
that an employer may satisfy its obligations to indemnify
employees for reasonable and necessary business expenses under CLC
2802 by paying enhanced taxable compensation. The Supreme Court
remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
proceedings related to class certification and directed the trial
court to consider whether the following issues could properly be
resolved on a class-wide basis: (1) did Shoppers adopt a practice
or policy of reimbursing outside sales representatives for
automobile expenses by paying them higher commission rates and
base salaries than it paid to inside sales representatives, (2)
did Shoppers establish a method to apportion the enhanced
compensation payments between compensation for labor performed and
expense reimbursement and (3) was the amount paid for expense
reimbursement sufficient to fully reimburse the employees for the
automobile expenses they reasonably and necessarily incurred. On
May 19, 2009, the trial court issued a partial class certification
order certifying a class action with respect to the first two
foregoing questions and denying class certification on the third
foregoing question.
Harte-Hanks, Inc. -- http://www.harte-hanks.com/-- is a
worldwide direct and targeted marketing company that provides
direct marketing services and shopper advertising opportunities
to a range of local, regional, national and international
consumer and business-to-business marketers. The company manages
its operations through two operating segments: Direct Marketing,
which operates both nationally and internationally, and Shoppers,
which operates in local and regional markets in California and
Florida.
HUMANA INC: Still Defends "Sacred Heart" Class Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Humana, Inc.'s subsidiary Humana Military Healthcare Services,
Inc., is still defending itself against a class action lawsuit
asserting contract and fraud claims, according to the Company's
May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.
Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., was named as a
defendant in Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana
Military Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT,
a class action lawsuit filed on February 5, 2007, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida asserting
contract and fraud claims against Humana Military. The Sacred
Heart Complaint alleged, among other things, that, Humana Military
breached its network agreements with a class of hospitals in six
states, including the seven named plaintiffs, that contracted for
reimbursement of outpatient services provided to beneficiaries of
the DoD's TRICARE health benefits program. The Complaint alleged
that Humana Military breached its network agreements when it
failed to reimburse the hospitals based on negotiated discounts
for non-surgical outpatient services performed on or after
October 1, 1999, and instead reimbursed them based on published
CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charges (so-called ?CMAC rates?). Humana
Military denied that it breached the network agreements with the
hospitals and asserted a number of defenses to these claims. The
Complaint sought, among other things, the following relief for the
purported class members: (i) damages as a result of the alleged
breach of contract by Humana Military, (ii) taxable costs of the
litigation, (iii) attorneys fees, and (iv) any other relief the
court deems just and proper. Separate and apart from the class
relief, named plaintiff Sacred Heart Health System Inc. requested
damages and other relief for its individual claim against Humana
Military for fraud in the inducement to contract. On September 25,
2008, the district court certified a class consisting of all
institutional healthcare service providers in TRICARE former
Regions 3 and 4 which had network agreements with Humana Military
to provide outpatient non-surgical services to CHAMPUS/TRICARE
beneficiaries as of November 18, 1999, excluding those network
providers who contractually agreed with Humana Military to submit
any such disputes with Humana Military to arbitration. On March 3,
2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's class
certification order and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceeding. On June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs sought
leave of the district court to amend their complaint to join
additional hospital plaintiffs. Humana Military filed its response
to the motion on July 28, 2010. The district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to join 33 additional hospitals on
September 24, 2010. On October 27, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
their Fourth Amended Complaint claiming the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida has subject matter
jurisdiction over the case because the allegations in the
complaint raise a substantial question under federal law. The
amended complaint asserts no other material changes to the
allegations or relief sought by the plaintiffs. Humana Military's
Answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on November 30,
2010.
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Continues to Defend "Hui Zhao" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
International Rectifier Corp. continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit captioned Hui Zhao v. International
Rectifier Corporation, according to the Company's May 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2011.
The Company reported a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Hui Zhao v. International Rectifier Corporation (filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, case No. BC396461), naming as defendants the Company and
all of its directors purporting to allege claims for breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of investors based on
the theory that the Board breached its fiduciary duty by rejecting
an August 2008 unsolicited, non-binding proposal by Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc. to acquire all outstanding shares of the
Company. In April 2009, the Court sustained the Company's
demurrer to the amended complaint and ordered the action to be
dismissed with prejudice. In June 2009, plaintiffs in Zhao filed
a notice of appeal from the final judgment of dismissal. In March
2010, plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief. In June
2010, Defendants-respondents' filed their opposition brief. In
September 2010, plaintiff-appellants filed their reply brief.
Oral argument on the appeal was held on April 27, 2011. The
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
appeal and against any claims asserted by plaintiffs-appellants in
this action should plaintiffs-appellants prevail on appeal.
International Rectifier Corporation -- http://www.irf.com/-- is a
world leader in power management technology. IR's analog,
digital, and mixed signal ICs, and other advanced power management
products, enable high performance computing and save energy in a
wide variety of business and consumer applications. Leading
manufacturers of computers, energy efficient appliances, lighting,
automobiles, satellites, aircraft, and defense systems rely on
IR's power management solutions to power their next generation
products.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls 11,700 HIV/AIDS Drug Prezista
--------------------------------------------------------
Peter Loftus at The Wall Street Journal reports that Johnson &
Johnson's manufacturing-quality lapses continued, with the
company's recall of at least 11,700 bottles of HIV/AIDS drug
Prezista in several countries, after discovering trace amounts of
a chemical emitting offensive odors.
J&J said on May 11, 2011, it had received four consumer reports of
musty or moldy odors, and it found the chemical in five batches of
products sold in the U.K., Ireland, Germany, Austria and Canada.
The chemical is 2,4,6 tribromoanisole, also known as TBA, which is
a byproduct of a chemical preservative sometimes applied to wood
used for pallets to transport and store products.
J&J has initiated recalls at the wholesale and retail levels in
the affected European countries, including about 9,000 bottles of
400-milligram tablets, and about 2,700 bottles of 600mg tablets,
said spokesman Mark Wolfe. J&J estimates fewer than 2,000 bottles
remain in countries where recalls have been initiated. In the
U.K., only the 400mg tablets were affected.
In Canada, one lot of 600mg Prezista was found to contain bottles
with TBA, and J&J estimates fewer than 300 affected bottles remain
on the Canadian market from this lot. J&J is in discussions with
Canadian regulatory authorities to determine the appropriate
course of action, Mr. Wolfe said.
Patients shouldn't stop taking Prezista, he added.
J&J, of New Brunswick, N.J., has been grappling with a series of
product recalls that span its diversified businesses, from over-
the-counter medicines to hip-replacement parts to surgical
sutures. The actions have hurt sales and tarnished J&J's once-
sterling reputation for quality. In response, the company has
shuffled management, shuttered a plant outside Philadelphia and
taken other steps to try to recover from the quality lapses.
J&J previously blamed TBA and a related chemical for reports of
uncharacteristic odors that led to recalls of various over-the-
counter medicines including Tylenol, since 2009. Pfizer Inc. also
cited TBA in recalls of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor last
year.
J&J said TBA isn't toxic, but can generate musty or moldy odors
that cause some patients to have temporary gastrointestinal
symptoms.
J&J said there have been no reported serious adverse events caused
by the presence of TBA in Prezista.
The affected products were manufactured at a J&J plant in Puerto
Rico, Mr. Wolfe said. The company had previously taken steps to
reduce the potential for TBA contamination, including requiring
suppliers to verify they don't use pallets made from chemically
treated wood. J&J said it is conducting an internal investigation
with suppliers to identify potential sources of TBA.
J&J recorded $857 million in Prezista sales for 2010, up 45% from
2009.
LOEWS CORPORATION: Enters Stipulation to Settle "Insurers" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Loews Corporation and other insurers have entered into a
stipulation with plaintiffs in settlement of a class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.
In August 2005, CNA and certain insurance subsidiaries were joined
as defendants, along with other insurers and brokers, in
multidistrict litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 04-5184. The plaintiffs'
consolidated class action complaint alleges bid rigging and
improprieties in the payment of contingent commissions in
connection with the sale of insurance that violated federal and
state antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state common law. After discovery, the
District Court dismissed the federal antitrust claims and the RICO
claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
their complaint to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In August
2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal
of the antitrust claims and the RICO claims against CNA and
certain insurance subsidiaries, but vacated the dismissal of one
portion of those claims against some other parties and remanded
them for further proceedings on motions to dismiss. The Court of
Appeals also vacated and remanded the dismissal of the state law
claims against CNA and certain insurance subsidiaries and other
parties to allow for further proceedings relating to motions to
dismiss before the District Court. In November 2010, CNA and
certain insurance subsidiaries filed in the district court a
motion to dismiss the remaining state law claims pending against
them. In March 2011, CNA and certain insurance subsidiaries, along
with certain other defendants, entered into a memorandum of
settlement understanding with the plaintiffs to settle all claims
asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the class action
lawsuit. The settlement is subject to negotiation of additional
terms, execution of a settlement agreement and court approval of
the settlement. As currently structured, the settlement will not
have a material impact on the Company's results of operations.
M/I HOMES: Still Defending "Chinese Drywall" Claims
---------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes, Inc., is still defending itself against remaining
claims related to the Company's construction of Chinese drywall in
certain customers' homes, according to the Company's May 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.
On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the
Company's homes filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the
United States or alternatively in Florida, against the Company and
certain other identified and unidentified parties. The plaintiff
alleged that the Company built his home with defective drywall,
manufactured and supplied by certain of the defendants, that
contains sulfur or other organic compounds capable of harming the
health of individuals and damaging metals. The plaintiff alleged
physical and economic damages and sought legal and equitable
relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees. The Company filed
a responsive pleading on or about April 30, 2009. This case was
consolidated with other similar actions not involving the Company
and transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to
an order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In connection
with the administration of the In Re: Chinese Manufactured Drywall
Product Liability Litigation, the same homeowner and seven other
homeowners were named as plaintiffs in omnibus class action
complaints filed in and after December 2009 against certain
identified manufacturers of drywall and others (including the
Company), including one homeowner named as a plaintiff in an
omnibus class action complaint filed in March 2010 against various
unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others (including the
Company). As they relate to the Company, the Initial Action and
the MDL Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and
seek substantially the same relief. During the third quarter of
2010, the Company entered into agreements with three of those
homeowners named as plaintiffs pursuant to which the Company
agreed to make repairs to their homes consistent with repairs made
to the homes of other homeowners. As a result of those agreements,
the Initial Action has been resolved, and those three homeowners
are no longer parties to any of the MDL Omnibus Actions. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining claims.
MACLAREN USA: Recalls 1 Million Strollers Over Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Maclaren USA, Inc., of South Norwalk, Connecticut, re-announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,000,000 Maclaren strollers, which were
sold prior to its November 2009 recall. Consumers who have not
yet obtained the repair should do so immediately. It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The stroller's hinge mechanism poses a fingertip amputation and
laceration hazard to the child when the consumer is unfolding/
opening the stroller.
Maclaren has received a total of 149 reported incidents with the
strollers, including 37 reported injuries that occurred after the
stroller was recalled in November 2009. These reported injuries
include five additional fingertip amputations, 16 additional
lacerations and 16 additional fingertip entrapments/bruising. At
the time of the original recall, there were 15 incidents,
including 12 reports of fingertip amputations in the United
States.
This reannouncement involves all Maclaren single and double
umbrella strollers sold prior to November 2009. The word
"Maclaren" is printed on the stroller. Maclaren strollers sold
after May 2010 have a different hinge design and are not affected
by this announcement.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11222.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
juvenile product and mass merchandise retailers nationwide from
1999 through November 2009 for between $100 and $360.
Consumers who have not installed the hinge covers should
immediately contact Maclaren USA to receive the free repair kit.
Consumers who have not received or installed the hinge covers
should contact Maclaren USA at hingecovers@maclaren-usa.com to
obtain the free repair kit. Consumers also can call Maclaren
toll-free at (877) 688-2326 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday.
MEDIFAST INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on May 11 disclosed that the deadline to
make a lead plaintiff motion in the Medifast class action is
May 17, 2011. The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Medifast, Inc., securities between the
period of March 4, 2010, through and including March 10, 2011,
2011. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 against Medifast and certain individual defendants.
Plaintiffs in the case allege that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company was improperly recognizing certain expenses; (2) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 11, 2011, the Company disclosed that it would be forced
to delay the filing of its fiscal 2010 financial results and its
Annual Report. According to the limited information provided by
the Company regarding the delay, Medifast requires additional time
to complete its year-end financial statements due to the need to
review the recognition of certain expenses in prior periods. On
this news, Medifast shares declined $5.27 per share, or more than
24%, to close at $16.63 per share.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Medifast during the
Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Medifast
shares during the Class Period, and either lost money on the
transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this
action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must
meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file
appropriate papers no later than May 17, 2011.
MEIJER INC: Recalls 17,400 Infant Slipper Socks
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Meijer Inc., of Grand Rapids, Michigan, announced a voluntary
recall of about 17,400 Bumble Bee and Lady Bug infant slipper
socks. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.
The balls at the end of the bug's antennae can detach, posing a
choking hazard to young children.
Meijer received one report of a ball detaching from the antennae.
It was found in a child's crib. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves Falls Creek brand infant slipper socks,
including yellow and black Bumble Bee Slipper Socks, UPC
80640907401, and red and black Lady Bug Slipper Socks, UPC
80640907402. The UPC is located on the sock's hangtag. They were
sold in infant size 0-12 months.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11220.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Meijer stores in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio
from June 2009 through March 2011 for about $4.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled slipper socks away
from children and return them to any Meijer store for a full
refund. For additional information, contact Meijer at (800) 927-
8699 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.meijer.com/
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend "Howell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to Motorola Solutions,
Inc.'s May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.
A class action, Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed
against Motorola and various of its directors, officers and
employees in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act. The complaint alleged that the defendants had
improperly permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to
purchase or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the
price of Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure
to disclose vendor financing to Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon
Hizmetleri A.S. in connection with the sale of telecommunications
equipment by Motorola. Telsim had subsequently defaulted on the
payment of approximately $2 billion of such vendor financing,
approximately half of which the Company has recovered to date.
The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in
the Plan and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On
September 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed on October 15, 2004. Three new
purported lead plaintiffs subsequently intervened in the case, and
filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent a
class of Plan participants. The class as certified includes all
Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
and held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through
May 14, 2001, with certain exclusions. The court granted leave to
defendants to appeal the class certification and granted leave to
lead plaintiff Howell to appeal an earlier dismissal of his
individual claim. Each party filed those appeals. On June 17,
2009, the Illinois District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of all defendants on all counts. On June 25, 2009, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed as moot defendants'
class certification appeal and stayed Howell's appeal. On
July 14, 2009, plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment decision.
By order of the Seventh Circuit on August 17, 2009, Howell's
individual appeal and plaintiffs' appeal of the summary judgment
decision (now cited as Howell v. Motorola, Inc. et al. and Lingis
et al. v. Rick Dorazil et al.) were consolidated with Spano et al.
v. Boeing Company et al. and Beesley et al. v. International Paper
Company for argument and decision. On January 21, 2011, the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois District Court's summary
judgment decision in favor of Motorola and denied Howell's
individual appeal in all respects. On April 21, 2011, plaintiffs
filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court
in Lingis et al. v. Rick Dorazil et al., seeking the Supreme
Court's review of a single question regarding the standard for
liability of ERISA plan fiduciaries for failure to disclose
information. The petition for certiorari does not challenge any of
the Seventh Circuit's other holdings in Lingis, nor its decision
in Howell v. Motorola, Inc. et al.
Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides
technologies, products and services for mobile phones. Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end enterprise
mobility products. The company operates under three segments:
Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment. In April 2009, the company
completed the sale of its biometric business unit, including the
Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Sagem Securite. In January 2010, the company acquired
SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors. In February 2010, the
company acquired BitBand, a provider of content management and
delivery systems, specializing in video on demand for Internet
protocol television (IPTV).
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Motion to Dismiss "Silverman" Suit Is Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the remaining claims
in the class action lawsuit captioned Silverman v. Motorola, Inc.,
et al., remains pending, according to the Company's May 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.
A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006, and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act. The factual assertions in the complaint consist
primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made
incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for
the third and fourth quarter of 2006. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported
inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period.
An amended complaint was filed December 20, 2007, and Motorola
moved to dismiss that complaint in February 2008. On
September 24, 2008, the district court granted this motion in part
to dismiss Section 10(b) claims as to two individuals and certain
claims related to forward looking statements, among other things,
and denied the motion in part. On August 25, 2009, the district
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On
March 10, 2010, the district court granted plaintiffs motion to
file a second amended complaint which adds allegations concerning
Motorola's accounting and disclosures for certain transactions
entered into in the third quarter of 2006. On February 16, 2011,
the district court granted summary judgment to dismiss the
remaining claims as to two individual defendants and the Section
10(b) claim as to a third individual, and denied the motion in
part. On March 21, 2011, Motorola filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss the remaining claims against the Company and
other individual defendants.
Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides
technologies, products and services for mobile phones. Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end enterprise
mobility products. The company operates under three segments:
Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment. In April 2009, the company
completed the sale of its biometric business unit, including the
Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Sagem Securite. In January 2010, the company acquired
SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors. In February 2010, the
company acquired BitBand, a provider of content management and
delivery systems, specializing in video on demand for Internet
protocol television (IPTV).
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Two Derivative Suits Remain Pending in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuits captioned Williams v. Zander, et al.,
and Cinotto v. Zander, et al., remain pending in an Illinois
court, according to Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s May 2, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 2, 2011.
On August 24, 2007, two lawsuits were filed as purportedly
derivative actions on behalf of Motorola, Williams v. Zander, et
al., and Cinotto v. Zander, et al., in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors. These complaints assert causes
of action for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.
The complaints seek unspecified damages associated with the
alleged loss to the Company deriving from the defendants' actions
and demand that Motorola make a number of changes to its internal
procedures. An amended complaint was filed on December 14, 2007.
On January 27, 2009, Motorola's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was granted in part and denied in part.
Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides
technologies, products and services for mobile phones. Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end enterprise
mobility products. The company operates under three segments:
Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment. In April 2009, the company
completed the sale of its biometric business unit, including the
Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Sagem Securite. In January 2010, the company acquired
SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors. In February 2010, the
company acquired BitBand, a provider of content management and
delivery systems, specializing in video on demand for Internet
protocol television (IPTV).
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Appeal in "Goldfein" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit captioned
Goldfein v. Brown, et al., remains pending, according to Motorola
Solutions, Inc.'s May 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2,
2011.
On March 29, 2010, a purported derivative action lawsuit on behalf
of Motorola, Goldfein v. Brown, et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors. The complaint makes substantially similar factual
allegations to those made in the Williams v. Zander, et al. and
Cinotto v. Zander, et al. derivative actions pending in Illinois
state court and asserts causes of action for breaches of fiduciary
duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief associated
with the alleged loss to the Company deriving from the defendants'
actions. On December 10, 2010, the district court granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs
have appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.
Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides
technologies, products and services for mobile phones. Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end enterprise
mobility products. The company operates under three segments:
Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment. In April 2009, the company
completed the sale of its biometric business unit, including the
Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Sagem Securite. In January 2010, the company acquired
SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors. In February 2010, the
company acquired BitBand, a provider of content management and
delivery systems, specializing in video on demand for Internet
protocol television (IPTV).
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Appeal in "St. Lucie" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund securities class action case
remains pending, according to Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s May 2,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.
A purported class action lawsuit, St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company on January 21, 2010, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint was amended on June 11, 2010, and again on December 3,
2010. The alleged class includes purchasers of Motorola
securities between October 25, 2007 and January 23, 2008. The
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of
the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act. The primary factual allegations are that
the defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially misleading
statements concerning Motorola's financial projections and sales
demand for Motorola phones during the class period. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating to the
purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the
class period. On February 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint in
its entirety with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal with the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals.
Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides
technologies, products and services for mobile phones. Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end enterprise
mobility products. The company operates under three segments:
Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment. In April 2009, the company
completed the sale of its biometric business unit, including the
Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Sagem Securite. In January 2010, the company acquired
SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors. In February 2010, the
company acquired BitBand, a provider of content management and
delivery systems, specializing in video on demand for Internet
protocol television (IPTV).
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Time to Appeal "Waber" Suit Dismissal Passed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The time to appeal the dismissal of the class action lawsuit
captioned Waber v. Dorman, et al., has passed, according to
Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s May 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 2, 2011.
On April 2, 2010, Waber v. Dorman, et al., a purported derivative
action on behalf of Motorola against certain of its current and
former officers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint was amended on July 28, 2010. The complaint asserts
causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust
enrichment. The Waber complaint seeks unspecified damages
associated with the alleged loss to the Company deriving from the
defendants' actions. On February 23, 2011, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint
in its entirety with prejudice. Plaintiffs' time to file a notice
of appeal has passed.
Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides
technologies, products and services for mobile phones. Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end enterprise
mobility products. The company operates under three segments:
Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment. In April 2009, the company
completed the sale of its biometric business unit, including the
Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Sagem Securite. In January 2010, the company acquired
SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors. In February 2010, the
company acquired BitBand, a provider of content management and
delivery systems, specializing in video on demand for Internet
protocol television (IPTV).
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Certification Motion Pending in Plan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification was filed in March 2011 in a
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according
to Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s May 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 2, 2011.
Two purported class action lawsuits on behalf of all participants
in or beneficiaries of the Motorola 401(k) Plan between July 1,
2007 and the present and whose accounts included investments in
Motorola stock, Joe M. Groussman v. Motorola, Inc. et al. and
Angelo W. Orlando v. Motorola, Inc. et al., were filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and
employees of the Company, the Motorola 401(k) Plan Committee, the
Advisory Committee of Motorola and other unnamed defendants on
February 10, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. On May 20, 2010, the court ordered
the cases to be consolidated. On July 16, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint. The amended complaint
added as defendants additional current and former employees, the
Compensation and Leadership Committee of Motorola, and the
Motorola Retirement Benefits Committee, and deleted the Advisory
Committee of Motorola as a defendant. The amended complaint also
reduced the class period to run from July 1, 2007 to December 31,
2008. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of
Sections 404 and 405 of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974. The primary claims in the amended complaint are that,
in connection with alleged incorrect statements concerning
Motorola's financial projections and demand for Motorola phones
during the class period, various of the defendants failed to
prudently and loyally manage the Plan by continuing to offer
Motorola stock as a Plan investment option, failed to provide
complete and accurate information regarding the performance of
Motorola stock to the Plan's participants and beneficiaries,
failed to avoid conflicts of interest, and failed to monitor the
Plan fiduciaries. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages
and other relief relating to purported losses to the Plan and
individual participant accounts. On September 24, 2010, the
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On
October 7, 2010, the court dismissed the Retirement Benefits
Committee as a defendant. On January 18, 2011, the Court denied
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 14,
2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, seeking
certification of a class of "all persons who were participants in,
or beneficiaries of, the Motorola 401(k) Plan at any time between
July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008, and whose accounts included
investments in Motorola stock," but excluding Defendants, members
of their immediate families, any officer, director or partner of
any Defendant, any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling
interest, and the heirs, successors and assigns of the foregoing.
Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides
technologies, products and services for mobile phones. Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end enterprise
mobility products. The company operates under three segments:
Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment. In April 2009, the company
completed the sale of its biometric business unit, including the
Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Sagem Securite. In January 2010, the company acquired
SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors. In February 2010, the
company acquired BitBand, a provider of content management and
delivery systems, specializing in video on demand for Internet
protocol television (IPTV).
NCR CORP: Settlement Pay in "Death Benefits" Suit Set This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Payment of the settlement reached by NCR Corporation in the death
benefits class action lawsuits will be made this month, according
to the Company's May 2, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.
In August 2009, a federal court in Ohio granted motions for
summary judgment against NCR in two companion class actions
brought on behalf of certain unionized retirees, who claimed that
the Company's 2003 decision to terminate certain benefits payable
on death violated collective bargaining agreements and other
rights. The Company appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals and created an accrual of approximately $6
million for the potential liability, which NCR recognized as other
expense during 2009. While the appeal was pending, the Company
reached a settlement of approximately $3 million which received
final approval from the federal district court in March 2011. The
settlement payment will be made in May 2011; the balance of the
accrual was released to other income during the three months ended
March 31, 2011.
NCR Corporation is a global technology company and leader in
automated teller machines, self-checkouts and other self- and
assisted-service solutions, serving customers in more than 100
countries. NCR's software, hardware, consulting and support
services help organizations in retail, financial, entertainment,
travel, healthcare and other industries interact with consumers
across multiple channels.
NORTHERN STATES: "Robarge" Suit vs. Unit is now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Northern States Power Company's
subsidiary in Wisconsin, captioned as Robarge vs. NSP-Wisconsin,
is now concluded after the plaintiff did not appeal a state
court's denial of its class certification motion, according to the
Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.
Plaintiff in the purported class action, served in late 2009 and
venued in County Circuit Court in Eau Claire, Wis., alleges that
NSP-Wisconsin has engaged in unfair and improper refund practices
regarding the cost of service extensions and seeks certification
of a class of those similarly situated. Plaintiff claims
entitlement to actual damages in an amount, as yet undetermined,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, and fees and costs. NSP-
Wisconsin filed a motion for summary judgment in April 2010 and
filed its opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification
in July 2010. In January 2011, the Court issued an order denying
plaintiff's motion for class certification and granting NSP-
Wisconsin's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not appeal
and, therefore, this case is concluded.
PPG INDUSTRIES: Reaches Final Settlement Pacts in Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., has reached final settlement agreements in
antitrust lawsuits, according to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.
Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 in
different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass producers
as defendants in purported antitrust class actions. The
complaints alleged that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and conditions of
sale of flat glass in the United States in violation of federal
antitrust laws. In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into
one federal court class action in Pittsburgh, Pa. In the
consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs sought a permanent
injunction enjoining the defendants from future violations of the
federal antitrust laws, unspecified compensatory damages,
including treble damages, and the recovery of their litigation
costs. Many allegations in the complaints were similar to those
raised in proceedings by the European Commission in which fines
were levied against other flat glass producers arising out of
alleged antitrust violations. PPG is not involved in any of the
proceedings in Europe. PPG divested its European flat glass
business in 1998. A complaint containing allegations substantially
similar to the U.S. litigation and seeking compensatory and
punitive damages in amounts to be determined by the court was
filed in the Superior Court in Windsor, Ontario, Canada in August
2008 regarding the sale of flat glass in Canada. In the third
quarter of 2010, the other defendants in these cases agreed to
settlements. Although PPG is aware of no wrongdoing or conduct on
its part in the operation of its flat glass business that violated
any antitrust laws, in order to avoid the ongoing expense of this
protracted case, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated
with complex litigation involving jury trials, in the third
quarter of 2010 PPG reached an agreement in principle to resolve
these flat glass antitrust matters for approximately $6 million.
All of the other defendants also agreed to settlements. Final
settlement agreements were executed in the fourth quarter of 2010.
SOLICITORS FROM HELL: May Face Class Action Suit From Law Society
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Dowell, writing for The Lawyer, reports that the Law Society
has consulted leading media silk Hugh Tomlinson QC on potentially
launching a legal action against consumer Web site Solicitors from
Hell.
The move comes after High Court judge Mr. Justice Henrique said
that both the Law Society and Bar Council should investigate
defamation complaints about the Web site.
The Web site claims to give consumers a forum in which they can
publicly name and shame solicitors who, they allege, have provided
a poor service. The Web site's coordinator, Rick Kordowski, is
facing about 15 libel law suits from solicitors.
The latest ruling delivered by Justice Henrique last month stated:
"The time has surely arrived for the Law Society and Bar Council
to consider some effective response to the conduct complained of
in this case and other similar cases.
"No doubt the legal profession does, on occasion, fail those who
seek its services. However, many conscientious and highly
reputable firms and individuals have found themselves as objects
of offensive abuse and defamatory publication at the behest of
disappointed litigants."
Responding, Wilberforce Chambers' Nikki Singla, who represented
the claimant, Thames Valley firm Gabbitas Robins Solicitors and
partner Stephen Robins, wrote to the Law Society and Bar Council
to request their considered response.
On May 11, the Law Society confirmed that it had taken legal
advice in relation to two cases it wants to pursue against
Mr. Kordowski.
It said: "The litigation will involve two claims run together.
The first would be an action for those already listed on the Web
site, which could be brought by one or more of them on behalf of
all the others.
"The second would be an action brought by the Law Society on
behalf of all solicitors not currently on the Web site, but who
could easily end up on there. Our solicitors will be writing to
all firms on the website very shortly to explain in more detail."
Matrix Chambers' Tomlinson, the barrister who has acted in several
high-profile super-injunction cases in recent months, has been
consulted on the action.
Mr. Kordowski has so far sought to use a fair comment defense to
rebuff claims, but this has not appealed to the judges sitting on
the cases.
In April Mr. Justice Tugendhat, who oversaw a separate defamation
claim against Mr. Kordowksi, said the defendant had abused court
process by "seeking to cause the claimants to incur costs which he
says they have no prospect of recovering from himself" (April 5,
2011).
According to his Web site, a GBP299 fee provides "an escape route"
for lawyers listed on the site and "encourages them not to spend
the GBP30,000 it frequently costs to pursue a libel claim against
Mr. Kordowski, who is the publisher of, but not the source of, the
criticism listed".
Mr. Kordowski said the Law Society's legal threat was an attempt
to "stifle criticisms of solicitors".
He added: "The Law Society have also made allegations of
'blackmail'. This is denied.
"There are many ways to have a complaint removed from Solicitors
from Hell. The preferred way would be for the solicitor to make
amends with the author. The solicitor can communicate with me and
exonerate themselves with evidence.
"The solicitor is offered a mediation service where I add my
suggestions or observations to each party. All of these methods
are without charge and have resulted with many published
complaints being removed.
"Another is the solicitor can sue me, or simply take it on the
chin and do nothing.
"Many firms and senior partners who have signed up to my
'Administration & Monitoring' service have said (in writing) it is
a good idea and are more than pleased to pay the reasonable cost
in return for copies of subsequent submissions, so they can
perhaps learn from client comments."
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 10th Suit Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jay Kahan, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-02256 (N.D. Calif. May 6, 2011), is filed on behalf of:
a) The "Multistate Class": All persons or entities that subscribed
to the PlayStation Network or Qriocity service, and suffered a
disruption of service and/or breach of security beginning on or
about April 17, 2011.
b) The "New York Class": All persons or entities in the State of
New York that subscribed to the PlayStation Network or
Qriocity service, and suffered a disruption of service
and /or breach of security beginning on or about April 17,
2011.
The class action is brought against defendants for equitable
relief, breach of express warranty, negligence, gross negligence,
breach of implied contract, negligence per se, and violation of
New York Deceptive Practices Act, General Business Law ("GBL")
Section 349, et seq., and violations of California's Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 and Section 17500, as well as
similar deceptive trade practices statutes and consumer protection
statutes in effect in other states nationwide.
This class action arises from defendants' improper, reckless, and
negligent failure to protect or safeguard the personal, private,
non-public, financial, and sensitive information of plaintiff and
the Class members he seeks to represent.
The plaintiff relates that between April 17 and April 19, 2011,
defendants became aware of a system-wide security breach of the
PSN. However, it was not until April 26, 2011, that defendants
finally began to notify users that their confidential and non-
public information had been compromised or "hacked."
Mr. Kahan is a resident of Nassau County, State of New York.
Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (f/k/a Sony
Computer Entertainment America Inc.) ("SCEA") is a Delaware
limited liability company with its executive offices and principal
place of business and corporate headquarters in Foster City,
California.
The plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN. P.L.
425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 11th Suit Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Quentin Reaves, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-02254 (N.D. Calif. May 6, 2011), is filed on
behalf of:
a) The Loss of Service Class consisting of all persons in the
United States who owned a Sony PlayStation console, subscribed
to the PSN service and/or Qriocity, and suffered loss of
service on or about April 17-19, 2011.
b) The Data Breach Class consisting of all persons in the United
States whose accounts were impacted by the breach of security
that occurred on or about April 17-19, 2011, and whose
confidential information was left unprotected and/or obtained
by, stolen, or disclosed to any unauthorized persons.
Plaintiffs relate that on or about April 17-19, 2011, computer
hackers breached SONY'S security systems and accessed a "plethora"
of personal and confidential information belonging to millions
of SONY customers who had purchased SONY PlayStations and
subscribed to SONY's online PlayStation Network and Qriocity
services. As a result of this security breach, SONY customers
not only lost access to a host of online services for which they
had paid, but experienced their vital confidential information --
including but not limited to credit card account numbers and IP
addresses -- released into cyberspace. According to the
Complaint, SONY not only failed to take adequate measures to
prevent this serious security breach from occurring, but failed to
notify its customers of the breach or to take reasonable steps to
mitigate their losses.
Mr. Reaves is a resident of New Haven, Connecticut. Defendant
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (formerly Sony Computer
Entertainment America Inc. ("SCEA") is a Delaware limited
liability company with its executive offices and principal place
of business and corporate headquarters in Foster City. California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
Nance F. Becker, Esq.
CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
42 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Telephone: (415) 381-5599
E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com
nance@chavezgertler.com
- and -
Gary Klein, Esq.
Shennan Kavanagh, Esq.
RODDY KLEIN & RYAN
727 Atlantic Avenue, 2nd Floor
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 357-5500
E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com
- and -
Peter Van Dyke, Esq.
EAGAN, DONOHUE, VAN DYKE & FALSEY, LLP
24 Arapahoe Road
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 232-7200
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 12th Suit Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Correlle Walker, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-02277 (N.D. Calif. May 9, 2011), is filed on behalf of
all persons and entities in the United States and its territories
who were active subscribers to the PlayStation Network as of
April 17, 2011.
The plaintiff relates that on April 24, 2011, Sony reported that
unauthorized hackers obtained the unique personal information of
its customers, including: name; address; country; e-mail address;
birth date; PSN password and login; and potentially credit card
information, among other things.
According to the Complaint, Sony learned of the breach between
April 17 and April 19, but did not inform users of the risks to
their personal and financial data until April 24.
Mr. Walker is a citizen of the state of Illinois. Defendant Sony
Computer Entertainment America, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company with its executive offices and principal place
of business and corporate headquarters in Foster City, San Mateo
County, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
manifold@whafh.com
rickert@whafh.com
moran@whafh.com
- and -
Joseph Siprut, Esq.
SIPRUT PC
122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 588-1440
E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
SONY COMPUTER: Faces 13th Suit Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian Toglia, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-02281 (N.D. Calif. May 9, 2011), accuse Sony
of failing to secure and safeguard its users' private personal and
financial data, including e-mail addresses, passwords, login
credentials, home addresses, dates of birth, and credit card
information.
The plaintiffs narrate that on or about April 17, 2011, PSN and
Qriocity services were "hacked" into by an unknown third party.
Personal data was stolen from each of the 77 million PSN accounts.
After learning of the security breach, Sony shut down the
PlayStation Network, keeping users, including those who pay for
premium services, from accessing their online accounts.
According to the Complaint, Sony knew of the breach at the time
service was discontinued, but failed to provide timely
notification to customers, thereby preventing users from taking
proactive steps to secure their personal and financial data.
Mr. Toglia is a resident of Woodridge, New Jersey.
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (formerly Sony Computer
Entertainment America Inc.) ("SCEA") is a Delaware limited
liability company with its executive offices and principal place
of business and corporate headquarters in Foster City, California
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vahn Alexander, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 461-1426
E-mail: valexander@faruqilaw.com
SYNGENTA CROP: Plaintiffs in Atrazine Suit Seek Schedule Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that the plaintiffs in a federal class action against Syngenta
Crop Protection, Inc., and Syngenta AG are asking the court to
change the suit's case management order, a move that defendants
oppose.
The City of Greenville filed its motion asking for the schedule
changes in the 2010 case on April 28.
Greenville is represented by:
Stephen Tillery, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
205 North Michigan, Suite 1940
Chicago, IL 60601-4269
Telephone: 314-241-4844
E-mail: STillery@koreintillery.com
Syngenta is represented by:
Kurtis B. Reeg, Esq.
REEG LAWYERS, LLC
One North Brentwood Boulevard Suite 950
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: 314-446-3350
E-mail: kreeg@reeglawfirm.com
In that motion, Greenville argues that it needs a three month
extension on its initial discovery period in order to get answers
to interrogatories it claims the Syngenta defendants have not
provided.
Such an extension, if granted, would push back the class
certification issue in the suit until next year.
The current deadline laid out in previous court orders for
discovery related to class certification is Aug. 1.
Greenville filed suit on behalf of what could be a multi-state
class of cities and water providers last year.
Greenville alleges it and other water providers have been forced
to remediate drinking water supplies when atrazine runs off farm
fields into those supplies.
The allegations in the federal case are virtually identical to
claims brought in six proposed class actions filed against
Syngenta and other companies that make and distribute atrazine in
Madison County.
Those suits, filed in 2004, have made little progress in seven
years.
The Syngenta case pending in Madison County before Circuit Judge
William Mudge has gone furthest, although it has been bogged down
in discovery disputes.
Neither the federal case nor any of the Madison County atrazine
class actions have been certified.
Syngenta filed its opposition to the schedule changes May 3.
It questions why Greenville requires more time for discovery.
"Plaintiffs have not articulated why they will be unable to
address the narrow issues related to class certification by the
Aug. 1, 2011 deadline," the response reads.
Syngenta also counters that contrary to the plaintiffs' claims
that they have not kept up the discovery pace, the companies have
turned over 4.6 million documents.
The defendants also allege that aside from an April 26 telephone
conference where an extension was mentioned, the plaintiffs did
not discuss asking for more discovery time before filing the
April 28 motion.
"Syngenta has been working in good faith to resolve the
outstanding discovery issues so that the parties can meet the
deadline," the response reads. "It is disappointing, therefore,
that Plaintiffs, rather than propose new deadlines to Syngenta,
simply filed this motion."
Greenville filed its reply to Syngenta's response on the matter
May 10.
In the May 10 filing, the plaintiffs deny that the defendant was
willing to work with them on changing deadlines in the case.
The plaintiffs also question whether the former case management
order in the case, entered in the summer of 2010, is realistic.
"The current scheduling order was based on the assumption that
discovery disputes with [Syngenta] would not drag on well into the
summer," the May 10 reply reads. "That assumption, unfortunately,
is doomed to prove false."
Other issues that remain ongoing in the federal suit include a
move by Syngenta AG to dismiss the claims against it on the
grounds of a lack of personal jurisdiction over the Switzerland-
based company and a move by two environmental groups to have
documents in the case unsealed.
U.S. District Court Judge J. Phil Gilbert presides.
The case is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.
It is case number 10-cv-188-JPG-PMF.
TARGET CORP: Class Action Over Airborne Supplement Inactive
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that there has been no action in a proposed multi-state class
action against Target Corporation since the retailer asked to
change attorneys in December 2010, according to the suit's case
file.
Target filed its motion seeking to substitute attorney Robert
Shultz, Esq., for attorney Robert Bassett, Esq.
That motion was filed Dec. 10.
Target is fighting one of a series of class actions filed in 2008
over the effectiveness of generic forms of the immune system
supplement Airborne.
The same team of attorneys -- Paul Weiss, Esq., Richard Burke,
Esq., and Kevin Hoerner, Esq. -- filed the suits against Target,
CVS Pharmacies Inc., and other retailers.
At least one of those suits has ended while others remain ongoing
in St. Clair County courtrooms.
The Target suit, led by lead plaintiff Brian Buehlhorn, seeks to
include a class of customers who bought Target's version of
Airborne from Illinois, Minnesota, and other states.
It has not been certified to date.
Target denies the suit's claims.
The December substitution motion does not specify a reason for
Target's change in counsel. Mr. Bassett, however, also represents
CVS in the immune supplement class action it faces.
The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-667.
TELSTAR PRODUCTS: Recalls 317,000 Energy-Saving Light Bulbs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Telstar Products, doing business as Sprint International Inc., of
Brooklyn, New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 317,000
light bulbs. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The light bulbs can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers.
Telstar Products has received two reports of fires. In one
incident, the fire was contained to the light fixture. The other
reported incident resulted in a residential fire.
This recall involves energy-saving light bulbs sold under the
Telstar and Electra brand names. The bulbs were sold in two
styles: spiral and the "3-Us" shape. The Telstar bulbs were sold
in 20 and 23 watts with model number LB-1020 and LB-1023 printed
on the packaging. The Electra bulbs were sold in 18, 20, 23, 26,
28, 30, 34, 36, 38 and 40 watts with model numbers LB-18, LB-20,
LB-23, LB-26, LB-28, LB-30, LB-1018, LB-1020, LB-1023, LB-1026,
LB-1134, LB-1136, LB-1138 and LB-1140 printed on the packaging.
"CE 110V," "China" and the wattage number are printed on the bulb.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11219.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
discount stores throughout New York and New Jersey from August
2010 through March 2011 for between $1 and $1.50.
Consumers should immediately stop using the light bulbs and return
it to the store where purchased for a full refund. For additional
information, contact Telstar Products toll-free at (888) 828-1680
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.telstarpro.com/
THE DAVEY TREE: Court Sets Jan. 30 Trial for "Meals" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit filed by employees of Davey Tree
Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert Company,
regarding off-duty meal periods is set to begin January 30, 2012,
according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 2, 2011.
Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert
Company, has been named in a purported class-action lawsuit in the
State of California filed on July 15, 2008, in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda. The
plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and a putative class
that Davey Tree Surgery Company has failed to comply with
California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required
content of paycheck stubs.
The plaintiffs allege that they and the putative "meal periods"
class have not been provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-
minute meal periods. In addition, plaintiffs allege that because
they were supposedly made to work during their meal breaks, Davey
Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law
because they and the putative members were not paid minimum wage
for their alleged work during meal breaks. Plaintiffs also
contend Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law by not
including the time they and the putative "wage statement" class
members worked during their meal periods, their hourly rates of
pay and number of hours worked at each hourly rate on their
paycheck stubs.
The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements"
class; some individuals are members of both classes, while others
are members of only one class. A trial is scheduled for
January 30, 2012.
At this time, it is not reasonably possible to evaluate the
likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome to this matter or
to estimate the amount or range of potential loss, if any.
However, any potential losses from claims of this nature would not
be insured, and therefore an adverse result could have a negative
effect on Davey's business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows which could be material. The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit, and the
Company believes that its defenses against these claims are
meritorious.
UJ TRADING: Recalls 18,500 Knight Hawk Toy Helicopters
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
UJ Trading, of Houston, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of
about 18,500 Danbar Knight Hawk Toy Helicopters, which were
previously recalled in January 2010. Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
The battery housing under the helicopter canopy can overheat while
charging, posing a fire hazard.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
This recall involves Danbar Toys Knight Hawk remote control
helicopters. The helicopter can be identified by model number
006047 marked on the back of the controller and the Knight Hawk
logo on the front of the controller. The body of the helicopter
also contains the markings: "AH-64" and "helicopter."
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11221.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Toy,
hobby and other stores, including mall kiosks, nationwide and
online at http://www.UJToys.com/from April 2010 through April
2011 for about $36.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled helicopters away
from children and contact UJ Trading to receive a full refund. UJ
Trading will provide consumers with a postage paid label to return
the product. For additional information, contact UJ Trading at
(800) 536-2691 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.UJToys.com/
WAL-MART STORES: Cuban Warehouse Workers May File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel and Jessica Wohl, writing for Reuters, report
that former Wal-Mart Stores Inc. warehouse workers of Cuban origin
may pursue a lawsuit accusing the world's largest retailer of
discrimination, and of firing them when they complained about
their treatment.
The May 9 ruling by a federal judge in Chicago came as Wal-Mart
awaits a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether more than 1 million
female workers can continue pursuing the largest class-action
gender bias case in history against the company.
In the case of the Cuban workers, Rolando Padron, Bobirt Miranda
and Eusebio Calzada accused Wal-Mart last October of paying them
less and giving them different work schedules than non-Cuban
workers, and denying them "make-up" days.
The men, each of whom had worked for Wal-Mart for more than five
years, also said their supervisors ignored a half-dozen complaints
before firing them in November 2006 in retaliation. They filed
charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
which found reasonable cause for a lawsuit.
Wal-Mart sought to dismiss the case, saying the men had no grounds
to pursue a class-action case on behalf of Cuban warehouse workers
nationwide, and had waited too long to sue.
While agreeing with most of Wal-Mart's arguments, U.S. District
Judge James Zagel allowed the plaintiffs to pursue a claim under
federal civil rights law alleging discrimination on the basis of
ethnic characteristics.
Judge Zagel rejected Wal-Mart's argument that because the EEOC
charges were based on national origin discrimination and not
racial discrimination, "the essence" of the plaintiffs' claim
could not be discrimination based on ethnic characteristics.
"Plaintiffs allege that they have dark-colored skin, eyes and hair
and that they are members of a racial minority, which could give
rise to an inference of racial animus," the judge wrote.
Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter said: "We're pleased the court
has dismissed important aspects of the case and we strongly
disagree with the claims."
He also said the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company has strong
policies against discrimination.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a call
seeking comment.
The case is Padron et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 10-06656.
A ruling in the Supreme Court gender bias case, Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. v. Dukes, is expected by the end of June.
*********
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, Julie Anne Lopez, 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 * * *