/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110705.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 5, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 131 Headlines AB&C GROUP: Court Approves Class Action Settlement AGRIA CORP: Consolidated Suit in New York Resolved AMBAC FIN'L: Has Motion for Securities Class Actions Settlement AMERICAN HOME: Sued Over Failure to Pay Out Policy Claims AOL INC: Sued for Tracking Consumers' Web Browsing History ATLANTIC CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Collection Activities CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Trial in "Hot Fuel" Cases Set for May 2012 COST PLUS: Recalls 1,000 Wooden Animal Drums DEBENHAMS: Shareholders Mull Legal Action Over Demerger Losses DYNEX CAPITAL: Cohen Milstein Issues Update on Class Action EASTERN PLATINUM: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action EVANS BOB FARMS: Payments in "Diaz" Settlement to Start This Month GANEDEN BIOTECH: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Diet Supplements GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Impalas Rear Spindle Rods GENERAL NUTRITION: Recalls 2,500 Units of Women's Multivitamins HAMILTON BEACH: Recalls 300,000 Toasters Due to Fire Hazard INT'L VITAMIN: Recalls 12T Units of Live Better Vitamins JPMORGAN: May Have to Pay Billions to Settle Class Actions LVNV FUNDING: Accused of Violating Collection Act in Illinois SAGE CREEK: Recalls 600 Children's Sleepwear SHADE STORE: Recalls 45,000 Roman Shades SMITH MICRO: Faces Securities Class Action in California SONOMA VALLEY: Shareholders File Class Action Over Collapse TARGET: October Status Conference Set for Class Action WAL-MART: Sued Over Fraudulent Battery Recycling Fee WALDHEIM CEMETERY: Faces More Suit Over Rosemont Contracts WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Shareholder Class Suit Settled for $208.5MM WM WRIGHT: Recalls 48T Roman Shade Kits Due to Strangulation Risk YAHOO! INC: Faces Shareholder Class Actions in California * Law Firms in Calif. Hires More to Defend Wage-and-Hour Suits ********* AB&C GROUP: Court Approves Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------- Jenni Vincent, writing for The Journal, reports that former AB&C employees who've been waiting for more than three years to get paid for their final days and benefits at the now bankrupt company should soon get a check. Attorney David Hammer said a settlement of $1,171,031.60 was "approved by the state's Northern District U.S. District Court for claims dating back to the closure of AB&C Group Inc.'s facilities on March 14, 2008." Final calculations will determine how much each employee will receive, he said. "Basically $726,000 will be divided between approximately 529 former employees," said Mr. Hammer, who worked on the case with fellow attorney Garry Geffert. Mr. Hammer said the employees can expect to receive their checks by mail in late August. The checks are being mailed by the court- approved administrator, HBS Class Action Services. AB&C Group Inc. operated call centers in Ranson and Orange, Va., as well as an order-fulfillment warehouse in Martinsburg. "On March 14, 2008, without prior warning to its hourly employees, AB&C abruptly shuttered its facilities and released its workers, many of whom had not been paid for their final three weeks of employment," Mr. Hammer said. Although it took a while to resolve, Mr. Hammer said he is pleased with the outcome, and that former employees will soon receive what they are due. "Given the situation, I feel good we've made this recovery. I'm pleased that this difficult chapter for so many employees is finally coming to an end," he said. "Getting paid more than three years late is not the intent of the law. However, the bankruptcy of AB&C Group and the difficulties of getting money from other potentially liable entities made this case particularly difficult and time consuming," Mr. Hammer said. Attorney Paul Taylor, who represented approximately 300 of the employees, said he is happy with the outcome -- especially considering other possible scenarios. "I am pleased to be able to get this because at one point it looked like it wouldn't happen," Mr. Taylor said. "It was a bad sign when the company went bankrupt, so we were forced to look further afield for recovery. "But the main thing is that the employees were treated terribly and I am happy to get them some satisfaction." AGRIA CORP: Consolidated Suit in New York Resolved -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of a settlement in a consolidated class action lawsuit against Agria Corporation, and entered a final judgment resolving the case, according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On February 3, 2009, a consolidated class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was filed, alleging violations of various sections of the Securities Act, against the Company, its executive officers, its directors and other defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's initial public offering registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose certain alleged discussions between two Agria executives relating to requests for additional compensation and a threatened resignation. On December 1, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the consolidated class action against the Company and the underwriters defendants, and the Court issued a judgment in favor of the Company and the underwriter defendants. On June 4, 2010, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the lead plaintiff reflecting an agreement in principle and agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle all claims asserted in the class action lawsuit. On September 20, 2010, the court granted a preliminary approval of the settlement. The deadline for filing objections to the Settlement, Plan of Distribution of settlement proceeds, and attorneys' fee and expense request by Lead Plaintiff's counsel expired on January 7, 2011, and no such objections were filed by Class Members. On June 7, 2011, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered a final judgment resolving the case. The settlement amount is within the limit of the Company's applicable insurance policies, and the Company does not expect the settlement to have any impact on its financial position, results of operation or cash flows. AMBAC FIN'L: Has Motion for Securities Class Actions Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News, reports that Ambac Financial Group Inc. filed a motion for bankruptcy court approval of a previously announced settlement calling for payment of $2.5 million in cash to resolve several securities law class-action suits first filed in January 2008. The hearing in bankruptcy court for approval of the settlement will take place July 19. According to the report, insurance companies that provided directors' and officers' liability insurance will provide an additional $24.6 million in the settlement. Ambac's $2.5 million has been in escrow since before the Chapter 11 filing. Mediation brought the parties to settlement. In one of the class suits, the U.S. district judge in New York dismissed claims based on a March 2008 securities offering while sustaining claims related to a February 2007 offering. About Ambac Financial Ambac Financial Group, Inc., headquartered in New York City, is a holding company whose affiliates provided financial guarantees and financial services to clients in both the public and private sectors around the world. Ambac Financial filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 10-15973) in Manhattan on Nov. 8, 2010. Ambac said it will continue to operate in the ordinary course of business as "debtor- in-possession" under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of the Bankruptcy Court. Ambac's bond insurance unit, Ambac Assurance Corp., did not file for bankruptcy. AAC is being restructured by state regulators in Wisconsin. AAC is domiciled in Wisconsin and regulated by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin. The parent company is not regulated by the OCI. Ambac's consolidated balance sheet -- which includes non-debtor Ambac Assurance Corp -- showed $30.05 billion in total assets, $31.47 billion in total liabilities, and a $1.42 billion stockholders' deficit, at June 30, 2010. On an unconsolidated basis, Ambac said in a court filing that it has assets of ($394.5 million) and total liabilities of $1.6826 billion as of June 30, 2010. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., as trustee to seven different types of notes, is listed as the largest unsecured creditor, with claims totaling about $1.62 billion. Peter A. Ivanick, Esq., Allison H. Weiss, Esq., and Todd L. Padnos, Esq., at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, serve as the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel. The Blackstone Group LP is the Debtor's financial advisor. Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC is the claims and notice agent. KPMG LLP is tax consultant to the Debtor. Anthony Princi, Esq., Gary S. Lee, Esq., and Brett H. Miller, Esq., at Morrison & Foerster LLP, in New York, serve as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Lazard Freres & Co. LLC is the Committee's financial advisor. AMERICAN HOME: Sued Over Failure to Pay Out Policy Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro de los Rios, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a lawsuit filed in Orleans Parish Civil District Court seeks class action status against insurer American Home Shield Corporation, which has allegedly failed to pay out policy claims to its clients. New Orleans attorney Michael Riley filed the petition for damages June 23. Bridgette and William Guadet are currently the only named plaintiffs in the suit. The suit seeks damages in excess of $75,000 for the plaintiffs via declaratory judgment. "American Home instituted policies, customs, practices, and procedures encouraging and directing their contractors to follow specific guidelines in a calculated effort to deny claims from policyholders whereby the contractors would receive a considerable bonus for the denial," the suit claims. The lawsuit claims that American Home -- which ensures home appliances and components -- "has denied claims made by Plaintiff and class members under its customary grounds of 'lack of maintenance,' 'pre-existing condition,' or 'failure to clean,' despite not inspecting the appliances when policies are issued. The suit claims that American Home agents will deny policy claims because an appliance "possesses de minimis indications of uncleanness" even if the appliance or component failed because of outside factors or regular wear and tear. The suit also claims American Home is liable for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent misrepresentation, among other charges. It states that the claims made "are separate from the class certified by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's Southern Division." This case has been assigned to Orleans Parish Judge Herbert Cade. Orleans Parish Case 2011-6610 AOL INC: Sued for Tracking Consumers' Web Browsing History ---------------------------------------------------------- Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action demands that AOL stop intruding on millions of people's privacy by tracking their Web browsing and selling the information to third-party advertisers. Co-defendants ScanScout and Brightcove also are accused of overriding privacy controls on private citizens' computers to install temporary files, or "cookies." The three defendants allegedly use Adobe flash technology to do their offensive snooping, but Adobe is not named as a defendant. ScanScout, which provides video ad services to AOL and others, uses Brightcove technology to display online video content and track consumers' viewing patterns, lead plaintiff Sandra Person Burns says in her 47-page complaint. "AOL was a minority investor in Brightcove until earlier this year," the complaint states. Ms. Burns says class members pay monthly subscription fees to AOL for service that includes Web browser controls, which "AOL purported would clear cookies, browsing history, and other web- browsing artifacts from their computers but which, because of defendants' conduct, did not do so." She estimates the class is in the millions. "To avoid being tracked online, plaintiff and class members used and relied on their browser controls to block and/or delete browser cookies from tracking companies, including defendants," the complaint states. "Since approximately 1997, typically approximately five times a week, plaintiff used her browser controls to delete browser cookies on her computer (which AOL described as 'small files kept on your computer that websites use to track your visits') and clear her browsing history, browser cache, blocked pop-ups list, saved thumbnail images and search history. "Plaintiff did so to protect her privacy interests and to improve the performance of her computer while she browsed the web." Ms. Burns says the class "reasonably expected their browser controls to block or delete cookies, preventing them from being tracked online, profiled, and served behaviorally targeted advertisements." The main purpose of cookies -- messages sent by a server to the user's browser -- is to identify users, store their preferences and prepare customized Web pages for them. The Internet Engineering Task Force labeled third-party cookies "unverified transactions" and warned that they pose a threat to consumers' online privacy and security. However, "with the dominant browsers in the market defaulting to acceptance of third-party cookies, online advertising companies were able to engage in widespread 'network advertising' and tracking by delivering ads to many websites," the complaint states. "The moment a consumer connects to the Internet, tracking companies bid against each other in automated, real-time auctions for the chance to track and target the consumer. . . . Tracking companies observe where consumers click, whether on a Web site or in a commercial email message. They track consumers from the moment of seeing but not clicking on a product ad to the consumers' purchase of the product many days later. Many tracking companies claim their tracking and profiling is anonymous when, in fact, they merge consumer profiles with purchased profile data about the individual consumers' online web activities and offline shopping, as well as details about income, education, family status and number of children, type of vehicle driven, and location of residence and work," says the complaint. Many consumers are unaware that their online activities are monitored. Their only protection against tracking is a browser control that blocks or deletes cookies, the complaint states. Despite AOL's representations, Burns says, she discovered that the defendants had stored Adobe Flash files -- called local stored objects (LSOs) -- on her computer to track her online activities. The Adobe Flash Player software is used to play video content on Web pages designed using Flash technology. Such Web sites often store LSOs -- which retain audio volume preferences and online video game scores -- on the computers of consumers using Flash Player. But Ms. Burns says, "Defendants stored LSOs on plaintiff and class members' computers for a different purpose; they used LSOs as substitutes and back-ups for browser cookies. . .. On plaintiff's computer, she discovered LSOs set by Brightcove dating back to 2009, including one in which Brightcove set an LSO for another third party tracking and including several in which Brightcove set LSOs for AOL, including for its advertising network." Ms. Burns says AOL and ScanScout stored tracking devices on her computer as early as 2006 and used them to collect information about her online activities. She says AOL transmits such information to other tracking companies. Ms. Burns adds: "Unlike cookies, for which commercial browsers provide consumers some measure of control, consumers have no reasonable means to block, detect or delete LSOs and are burdened by other, material differences between cookies and LSO." Ms. Burns says AOL and the tracking companies used the class members' private information without their consent and diminished the performance of their computers. She seeks class certification and compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Massachusetts' Privacy Act and Consumer Protection Act, trespass to chattel and unjust enrichment. And she wants the defendants enjoined from tracking consumers. A copy of the Complaint in Burns v. AOL Inc., et al., Case No. (D. Mass.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/30/Trackers.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS & PRESSLY LLP 60 State Street, Suite 700 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 1-800-934-2921 E-mail: konstantine@kyrospressly.com - and - Scott A. Kamber, Esq. David A. Stampley, Esq. Grace E. Parasmo, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 920-3071 E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com dstampley@kamberlaw.com gparasmo@kamberlaw.com - and - Joseph H. Malley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY 1045 North Zang Blvd. Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (214) 943-6100 E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com ATLANTIC CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Collection Activities -------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Betts, individually and on behalf of the class defined herein, and the People of state of Illinois ex rel Joseph Betts v. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-23341 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 30, 2011), seeks redress for the conduct of Atlantic in taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois Collection Agency Act. Mr. Betts alleges that Atlantic, which claims to acquire defaulted debts originally owed to others, engaged in collecting debts from consumers in Illinois, including him, before it obtained a license -- in violation of the ICAA. The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois. Atlantic is a corporation chartered under the law of Virginia, and does business in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOOD, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle putative class action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with CPK Holdings Inc., according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As previously disclosed, four putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 24, 2011, among California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., CPK Holdings Inc., ("Parent"), and CPK Merger Sub Inc. ("Purchaser"). The complaints filed with respect to the Merger Litigation name as defendants the members of the Board of Directors of the Company, as well as the Company, Parent and Purchaser. On June 27, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery and Los Angeles County Superior Court signed a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted in the actions related to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. This memorandum of understanding provides, among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the release of all asserted claims. The asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. Additionally, as part of the memorandum of understanding, the Company has agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger. Finally, in connection with the proposed settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek, and the defendants have agreed to pay, an award of attorneys fees and expenses in an amount to be determined by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. This payment will not affect the amount to be paid to Company stockholders pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Trial in "Hot Fuel" Cases Set for May 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------ A Kansas Court has scheduled trial to commence on May 17, 2012, in the "hot fuel" cases against Casey's General Stores, Inc., and other gasoline retailers, according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2011. The Company is named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel" cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers. The complaints generally allege that the Company, along with numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60 F. Fuel is measured at 60 F in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri. The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all states. The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and punitive damages. The amounts sought are not quantified. These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam against a wide range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute and/or market gasoline products in the United States. On June 18, 2007, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases (officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation") be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification. Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially completed during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification in each of the pending lawsuits. In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in two cases originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et. al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the Company is a named Defendant. The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to claims against the Company in the American Fiber & Cabling case, having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert such claims. However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a class as to the liability and injunctive aspects of the Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) against the Company and several other Defendants. With respect to claims for unjust enrichment, the class certified consists of all individuals and entities (except employees or affiliates of the Defendants) that, at any time between January 1, 2001, and the present, purchased motor fuel at retail at a temperature greater than 60 F, in the state of Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or controlled by one or more of the Defendants. As to claims for violation of the KCPA, the class certified is limited to all individuals, sole proprietors and family partnerships (excluding employees or affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases. The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not be consolidated for all purposes. The matter is now under consideration by the Court. The court has scheduled the trial to commence on May 17, 2012. Management cannot estimate or quantify the relief sought or the amount of possible loss or potential range of loss related to these actions. Management does not believe the Company is liable to the Plaintiffs for the conduct complained of, and intends to contest the matter vigorously. COST PLUS: Recalls 1,000 Wooden Animal Drums -------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cost Plus Inc. of Oakland, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Wooden animal drums. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The paint used on the drum is in excess of the maximum allowable level of 90 ppm, a violation of the federal lead paint standard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recalled toy is a wooden hexagon drum with pictures of animals on the six sides. SKU No. 424857 is printed on a sticker on the bottom of the drum. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11263.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Cost Plus World Market stores nationwide from December 2010 through May 2011 for about $7. Consumers should immediately stop using the toy and return it to Cost Plus World Market for a full refund. For additional information, contact Cost Plus toll-free at (877) 967-5362 between 7:00 a.m. and midnight Eastern Time seven days a week or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.worldmarket.com/ DEBENHAMS: Shareholders Mull Legal Action Over Demerger Losses -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Russell, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a group of established retailers, including Debenhams and Sir Philip Green's Arcadia Group, is facing the possibility of a class action lawsuit from current and previous shareholders. Law firm Edwin Coe is heading up the highly unusual action against Debenhams, Burton and Arcadia, and their directors. The legal action centers on losses suffered by shareholders in the companies dating back to the demerger of Debenhams in 1997. Edwin Coe claims total losses could be as much as GBP3.5 billion. A statement by the law firm read: "Shareholders and former shareholders in Debenhams, Burton, and Arcadia are forming an Action Group and considering taking legal action against the companies and directors in relation to losses suffered in the share value of these companies over the past few years." The action is understood to centre on the demerger of Debenhams in 1997; the sale of Arcadia to Sir Philip and Lady Tina Green in 2002; the sale of Debenhams to private equity in 2003 and the re- flotation of Debenhams three years later. The flotation of Debenhams with nearly GBP2 billion of debt remains one of the most controversial listings in recent memory. The company's shares have lost two-thirds of their value since re-emerging onto the public markets in 2006. Edwin Coe is currently inviting shareholders who lost money in the companies to join the action. Although the action is being headed by a reputable law firm it is not certain whether any legal challenge will emerge. Although a number of shareholder actions have been brought to the UK courts in recent years, particularly in relation to the financial crisis, few if any have been successful. Debenhams declined to comment. Arcadia, which owns Burton, could not be reached. DYNEX CAPITAL: Cohen Milstein Issues Update on Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC issued a statement regarding the Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation. LEGAL NOTICE ATTENTION PURCHASERS OF MERIT SECURITIES CORPORATION SERIES 12-1 AND SERIES 13 BONDS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 7, 2000 AND MAY 13, 2004 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PURCHASERS OF THE FOLLOWING MERIT SECURITIES CORPORATION'S COLLATERALIZED BONDS SERIES 12-1 AND SERIES 13 BETWEEN FEBRUARY 7, 2000 AND MAY 13, 2004 INCLUSIVE WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY: Series 12-1 Series 13 Class Cusips Class Cusips 1-A1 589962CK3 A1 589962CR8 1-A2 589962CL1 A2 589962CS6 1-A3 589962CM9 A3 589962CT4 1-M1 589962CN7 A4 589962CU1 1-M2 589962CP2 M1 589962CV9 1-B1 589962CQ0 M2 589962CW7 B1 589962CX5 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A CLASS HAS BEEN CERTIFIED IN PENDING LITIGATION THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. If you are a member of the class, your rights may be affected by the lawsuit referred to as In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 05-1897(HB), which is now pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, brought by Lead Plaintiff Teamsters Local 445 Pension Fund on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Dynex Capital, Inc., Merit Securities Corp., Dynex's Principal Executive Officer, Thomas Potts, and Merit's President and Chief Executive Officer, Steven Benedetti. The Court determined that the Action may proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You may be a member of the Class. Excluded from the Class are Defendants; the other officers and directors of Dynex during the Class Period; members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the merits of the claims or the defenses asserted in the Action. This Notice is merely to advise you of the pendency of this Action and of your rights therein. If you have not yet received the "Notice of Pendency of Class Action" which describes the Class Action and your related rights in detail, you may obtain a copy by calling 1-800-231-1815 or writing to: In Re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o GCG, Inc., PO Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249 If you fall within the definition of the Class set forth above, you are a member of the Class. IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. If you wish to be excluded from the Class, you must send a direction to be excluded to In Re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, EXCLUSIONS c/o GCG, Inc., PO Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249, postmarked no later than September 30, 2011. There are specific requirements for being excluded that are set forth in the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action. In addition, inquiries regarding this litigation may be addressed to: Joel P. Laitman, Christopher Lometti, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone: (212) 838-7797, Fax: (212) 838-7745 PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: June 30, 2011, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EASTERN PLATINUM: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that Eastern Platinum Ltd. says it will contest a proposed class-action lawsuit that alleges the company failed to disclose material changes to its Crocodile River Mine in South Africa. The miner, also known as Eastplats, on June 30 said it is aware of the suit filed earlier in the week by London, Ont.-based Siskinds LLP in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of shareholders who bought the company's stock between Jan. 1 and April 15 this year. "After reviewing the documents filed with the court, the company is of the view that the allegations are completely without merit and intends to vigorously defend the proposed lawsuit," Eastplats said in a statement. Class-action suits require certification by a judge before they can proceed in court. None of the allegations against the company have been proven. Eastern Platinum settled a two-year wage agreement with workers in South Africa on May 24 after what it characterized as an illegal strike action earlier in the month that saw some damage to its mining facilities. On May 11, the company reported a first-quarter net loss attributable to shareholders of $5.6 million, compared to year- earlier earnings of $824,000 as it sold 17 per cent less platinum group metals. Eastplats reported a "traditional slow start" to the year as well as mine infrastructure changes and staff retraining as causes of a production decrease. However, it said the impact was expected to be short term and production and earnings "will quickly return to anticipated levels." EVANS BOB FARMS: Payments in "Diaz" Settlement to Start This Month ------------------------------------------------------------------ Settlement payments in the class action lawsuit commenced by Edder Diaz and Rosolyn Gray, et al., against Bob Evans Farms, Inc., are scheduled to be distributed this month, according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 29, 2011. Like many restaurant companies and retail employers, SWH Corporation, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Bob Evans, which does business as Mimi's Cafe, has been faced with allegations of purported class-wide wage and hour violations in California. On October 13, 2009, a class action complaint entitled Edder Diaz and Rosolyn Gray, et al. vs. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe was filed in Alameda County California Superior Court. In a March 2010 amended complaint, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray purport to represent a class of servers, bartenders, front-of-house trainers, to-go servers, shift managers, or shift manager expeditors who are allegedly similarly situated. In a second amended complaint filed in October 2010, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray allege that current and former nonexempt employees working in these positions in California from July 26, 2006, to August 31, 2010, (1) were not reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in connection with the discharge of their duties, (2) were denied rest breaks and meal periods as required for nonexempt employees under California wage and hour laws, (3) were not paid minimum wage and overtime for time spent working off-the-clock during, or in connection with, a meal period, and (4) were required to pay for cash shortages. The second amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. Although the Company believes Mimi's Cafe has complied with the California wage and hour laws at issue in the Diaz lawsuit, it elected to resolve the lawsuit voluntarily. In October 2010, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Diaz class representatives and their legal counsel to settle the lawsuit for $340,000, inclusive of payments to class members, enhancements to the class representatives, costs of administration, and plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs related to the lawsuit. The Alameda County California Superior Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on December 8, 2010. The Company recently completed the administration of class notices, and the Alameda County Superior Court granted final approval of the settlement on May 31, 2011. The Court's final approval order rejected a portion of the class representative enhancements, saving Mimi's Cafe $4,500 of the settlement amount. Settlement payments are scheduled to be distributed in or around July 2011, and a final accounting hearing is scheduled with the Court on November 14, 2011. GANEDEN BIOTECH: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Diet Supplements ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Ganeden Biotech and Schiff Nutrition International push diet supplements with bogus claims about "clinical proof" that a proprietary "helpful" bacteria improves digestion and strengthens the immune system. A copy of the Complaint in Burton v. Ganeden Biotech, LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01423 (S.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/30/DietSupp.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: ron.marron@gmail.com - and - David L. Romero, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. ROMERO 925 Sandcastle Drive Cardiff, CA 92007 Telephone: (619) 995-03456 GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Impalas Rear Spindle Rods ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims General Motors' 2007-8 Impalas have defective rear spindle rods that cause wheel misalignment and premature tire wear, and though GM issued a recall bulletin for Impalas that "operated as police vehicles," it won't honor warranties for identical cars owned by customers who don't happen to be police. A copy of the Complaint in Trusky v. General Motors Company, et al., Case No. 11-cv-12815 (E.D. Mich.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/30/GM.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 100 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 111 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 45 West Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone: (215) 230-8043 E-mail: michael@edelsonlaw.ca - and - Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. John A. Macoretta, Esq. SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 - and - Ronald Jay Smolow, Esq. 3 Three Ponds Lane Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 579-1111 GENERAL NUTRITION: Recalls 2,500 Units of Women's Multivitamins --------------------------------------------------------------- About 2,500 units of GNC Women's Ultra Mega(R), Ultra Mega Active, Ultra Mega Energy and Metabolism, and GNC Prenatal Formula with Iron multivitamins were voluntarily recalled by General Nutrition Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The product contains iron, but does not have child-resistant packaging as required by federal law. If ingested by a child, these vitamins could cause serious injury or death. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall only involves four products with the noted lot numbers: GNC Women's Ultra Mega 28-count multivitamin bottles with lot numbers 0432AL1781 and 1283CL1781, GNC Women's Ultra Mega Active 180-count multivitamin bottles with lot numbers 1029BL1783 and 1030BL1783, GNC Women's Ultra Mega Energy and Metabolism 90- count multivitamin bottles with lot number 1450CL1789 and GNC Prenatal Formula with Iron 120-count multivitamin bottles with lot number 0785BL2863. The lot numbers are printed on the side of the bottle and on the bottom of the product's packaging. The affected lots are packaged in a white plastic bottle with a white label and a flip-top cap. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11748.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold exclusively at GNC retail stores nationwide and at the GNC Web site from March 2011 through May 2011 for between approximately $9 and $35. Consumers should keep these products out of the reach of children and return them to the GNC store where they were purchased to be exchanged for a replacement bottle or refund. For additional information, consumers can contact GNC toll-free at (888) 462-2548 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.gnc.com/ HAMILTON BEACH: Recalls 300,000 Toasters Due to Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Hamilton Beach Brands Inc., of Glen Allen, Virginia, announced a voluntary recall of about 300,000 units of Hamilton Beach(R) classic chrome 2-slice toasters. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The heating element in these toasters can remain energized indefinitely when an item is placed in the toaster which may ignite the contents, posing a fire hazard if the toaster is near flammable items. Hamilton Beach has received 15 reports of toasters that did not pop-up as intended, including three reports of minor damage to kitchen cabinets. There were no reports of injuries. The Hamilton Beach recall involves model 22600 toasters with specific series codes. These series codes begin with the letters C or D, and have the format of CXXXXBI or DXXXXBI, where XXXX is a four-digit number ranging from 0190 through 5290. The model number and series code are printed on the bottom of the toaster. The toaster has a chromed steel exterior, a front control panel with a rotary toast shade selector and function buttons arranged in an arc, a front removable crumb tray and Hamilton Beach printed across the front of the toaster. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11265.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mass merchandisers and department, grocery and home center stores nationwide and various online retailers from February 2008 through June 2011 for between $30 and $40. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toasters and contact the firm to receive instructions on how to obtain a free replacement toaster. For additional information, contact Hamilton Beach at (800) 379-2200 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.hamiltonbeach.com/. General toaster safety information available from Hamilton Beach at (http://tinyurl.com/43va5sd) (pdf). INT'L VITAMIN: Recalls 12T Units of Live Better Vitamins -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with International Vitamin Corporation, of Freehold, New Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 12,000 units of Live Better One Daily Tablets and Live Better Complex Vitamin B50 Tablets. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The iron supplements are not in child-resistant packaging as required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Ingesting multiple iron supplement tablets at once can cause serious injury or death to young children. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recalled supplements were sold in white plastic bottles. "Live Better Complete Multivitamin One Daily Maximum Formula" is printed in blue and red on a white label on one product and "Live Better Complex Vitamin B50" is printed in blue and green on a white label on the other product. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11266.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at A& P Liquor, A&P, Pathmark, Waldbaum's, The Food Emporium, Super Fresh and Food Basics grocery stores in CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, MA, VA and the District of Columbia between June 2009 and October 2010 for about $8. Consumers should keep this product out of reach of children and call International Vitamin Corporation to receive a free replacement child-resistant cap. For additional information, contact IVC toll-free at (866) 927-5470 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit http://www.ivcinc.com/ JPMORGAN: May Have to Pay Billions to Settle Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Comstock, writing for Business Insider, reports that Chris Whalen, a bank analyst, warns that JPMorgan and the top 5 or 6 banks might have to pay billions to settle class action lawsuits. He told King World News in an interview that even though banks have been fighting them, a ton of class action lawsuits against banks have survived past petitions for dismissal, etc. And they could cost JPMorgan, for example, up to 50 cents on the dollar (on the $45 to $50 billion in lawsuits against them, that's $20 -$25 billion). "The surviving 33 claims which are straight forward securities fraud claims, much like WorldCom, Enron and that sort of thing, those claims were settled at 50 cents on the dollar. So today of the trillion dollars or so in class action claims that were filed right after the crisis started, there's about $200 billion left that have survived motions to dismiss and other procedural efforts by the banks to knock this litigation out. JPMorgan has somewhere around $45 to $50 billion worth of current claims that look like they are going to go to trial." Usually, lawsuits like this don't stick around so long, and the claimants have to fight them for themselves. But not this time, says Whalen. "Now we in the community that watches this stuff had thought that eventually the New York courts were going to shoot down the class action lawsuits, and force all of the claimants to basically litigate on their own. That's the tendency in America, that's our federalist system. However, this time around we have bondholders in these classes and I think there is enough commonality in the claims that the court may actually let the class actions proceed, which is much more efficient for the plaintiffs obviously . . ." "There's still some significant claims out there. It's not certain that the banks will lose, but I will tell you that once claims like this gets passed preliminaries and they are actually going to trial, the plaintiffs have a good chance of winning." Translation: the top 5 or 6 banks, and in particular JPMorgan, might have to pay material settlements. "This may force the banks to settle. Now, if we settle at 50 cents on the dollar do the math, that becomes a very material hit not just for JPMorgan, but for all the top five, six banks that have home equity loan exposure that's been reflected in securities act claims or just primary mortgage backed securities that have fraud claims . . ." If Mr. Whalen's prediction plays out, the settlements could crush bank earnings in future quarters. Bank of America just settled a mortgage lawsuit for $8.5 billion and it's going to cost shareholders as the firm will announce losses of around $9.1 billion this quarter. LVNV FUNDING: Accused of Violating Collection Act in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Dremo, individually and on behalf of the class defined herein, and the People of state of Illinois ex rel Nicholas Dremo Joseph Betts v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-23389 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 30, 2011), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all individuals against whom LVNV filed a collection lawsuit in Illinois between January 1, 2008, and August 28, 2008. Mr. Dremo alleges that prior to obtaining a license under the Illinois Collection Agency Act, LVNV collected debts from and instituted collection actions against debtors in Illinois. The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois. LVNV is engaged in the business of purchasing or claiming to purchase charged-off consumer debts and enforcing the debts against the consumers by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOOD, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com SAGE CREEK: Recalls 600 Children's Sleepwear -------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Sage Creek Organics, of Tarzana, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 600 children's sleepwear. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The garments fail to meet the federal flammability standards for children's sleepwear posing a risk of burn injury to children. The garments are being recalled because they do not meet the tight-fitting sizing requirements. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves long sleeve boys' and girls' pajama sets that were part of the Enchanted Forest Collection, Forest Friends Collection or Golden Dragonfly Collection. The sets were sold in sizes 6 months to 4T in the following colors: cream and green; dark blue and light blue; and, pink and lilac. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11267.html The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at small boutiques nationwide and online at the company's Web site http://www.sagecreekorganics.com/from August 2010 to February 2011 for approximately $35. Consumers should immediately return the garments to either the place of purchase or to Sage Creek Organics for a full refund. For additional information, call Sage Creek Organics toll free at (877) 513-2183 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time. SHADE STORE: Recalls 45,000 Roman Shades ---------------------------------------- About 45,000 Roman shades were recalled by The Shade Store, of Port Chester, New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her neck. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves custom-made Roman shades. The shades were made out of fabric and of woven wood. The shades do not have any permanent markings. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11747.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at five showroom locations and online at http://www.theshadestore.com/from February 2006 through March 2011 for between $120 and $355 per shade. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shades and call the Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC) for a free repair kit toll-free at (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit http://www.windowcoverings.org/ The Shade Store is contacting all known customers. For more information, contact The Shade Store toll-free at (800) 754-1455 or by e-mail at help@theshadestore.com SMITH MICRO: Faces Securities Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on June 29, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Smith Micro Software, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from November 3, 2010, through May 4, 2011. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. If you are a member of the Class as described, you may move the Court no later than Monday, August 29, 2011, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email to: wbf@federmanlaw.com Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com SONOMA VALLEY: Shareholders File Class Action Over Collapse ----------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Halverson, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that the shareholders of Sonoma Valley Bank filed a class action lawsuit on June 29 laying the primary blame for its collapse on its former president and chief executive officer, Sean Cutting. The lawsuit, which also names the bank's six corporate directors and chief financial officer, accuses them of mismanaging more than $40 million in loans. It claims Cutting was "most directly responsible for the imprudent loan activity that destroyed the bank," according to the complaint. Mr. Cutting did not return calls seeking comment, and bank directors reached on June 29 declined comment. The class action lawsuit, filed in Sonoma County Superior Court, will cover virtually anyone who owned shares as of Aug. 25, 2010, except those named as defendants in the case, said George Donaldson, the Berkeley attorney representing shareholders. Newton Dal Poggetto, a Sonoma attorney, is the lead plaintiff on the case. "There are a lot of shareholders who feel they've been wronged," he said. Shareholders, mostly Sonoma Valley residents, saw the value of their stock fall from $31 a share in the autumn of 2007 to less than a penny after the bank's seizure last summer. The three-year slide wiped out $71 million of wealth. The federal government is estimated to have lost at least $20 million due to the closure. The lawsuit blames the bank's collapse, in large part, on its decision to approve loans totaling more than $40 million to companies and business partners of Bijan Madjlessi, a Marin County developer. About $35 million of those loans were never repaid. Mr. Madjlessi was arrested this month by state regulators for alleged insurance fraud stemming from a fire at one of his developments in Reno. The lawsuit blames the bank's executives and directors for allowing the alleged "massive, concentrated loans made to Madjlessi." The lawsuit also calls out the bank's four-member audit committee, which was responsible for reviewing the bank's financial statements. The bank was forced to drastically revise its financial statements after government regulators reviewed its accounting in early 2010. In essence, regulators determined the bank's net worth, which is called shareholder equity, was only half of what bank executives had claimed in their financial filings. Literally overnight, the bank had to revise its shareholder equity from $37.7 million down to $19.2 million in February 2010. This precipitous drop in capital, which is a key measurement of a bank's health, resulted in the government taking steps to close it. "The audit committee clearly failed to discharge its responsibilities and, in so doing, acted negligently," the lawsuit alleges. TARGET: October Status Conference Set for Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that St. Clair County Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson has set an October status conference in a proposed class action over the generic form of Airborne sold by Target stores. Mr. Gleeson entered the order June 18 order setting the conference in the suit brought by lead plaintiff Brian Buehlhorn for the conference Oct. 3, at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Buehlhorn proposes to lead a class of Target customers who bought the retailer's version of the immune system supplement and who claim it did not work. The suit is one of several immune supplement class actions filed by the team of Richard Burke, Paul Weiss, and Kevin Hoerner in 2008. The Buehlhorn suit if certified would include plaintiffs in California, Minnesota, and other states. Target denies the suit's claims. There has been little activity in the case throughout this year. Robert Bassett represents Target. The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-667. WAL-MART: Sued Over Fraudulent Battery Recycling Fee ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action claims Wal-Mart charges a fraudulent "battery core," or recycling fee for new lead-based batteries, but California has no such fee. WALDHEIM CEMETERY: Faces More Suit Over Rosemont Contracts ---------------------------------------------------------- The Estate of Diane Samuels, and all others similarly situated v. Rosemont Park, Inc., David Gail, Waldheim Cemetery Company, U.S. Trust, a division of Bank of America, and Zion Gardens Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-23177 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 29, 2011) is a purported class action brought by the estates, families and heirs of those interred at Zion Gardens cemetery, formerly known as Rosemont Park Cemetery, which class members signed contracts with Rosemont and paid funds to be placed in trust to ensure the perpetual care, upkeep and maintenance of the graves of their loved ones and family members interred at the Cemetery. Following the sale of the Cemetery to Waldheim, the Plaintiff says, it was informed that any perpetual care contracts with Rosemont were worthless and would no longer be honored. The Plaintiff argues that the unlawful use and depletion of the Trust principal for general upkeep of the Cemetery violated its contract, as well as Illinois law. Ms. Samuels died on February 20, 2006, and was interred at the Cemetery. Over a period of 20 years, contracts had been entered into for the care and maintenance of the graves of more than 20 of Ms. Samuels' relatives interred at the Cemetery. Rosemont is the former owner of the Cemetery, and also the party that entered into the specific/perpetual care contracts with members of the purported class. Mr. Gail is the current/former secretary of Rosemont and also the primary Rosemont authorized representative responsible for negotiating and entering into the contracts. U.S. Trust provides wealth management and financial services to businesses and individuals, including Rosemont. Waldheim is a cemetery care company in Illinois, and bills itself as one of the oldest Jewish cemetery management companies in the United States. Zion Gardens is the successor managing authority to Rosemont and is the current managing authority of the Cemetery. The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Pavich, Esq. Pavich Law Group 20 South Clark Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-8500 Facsimile: (312) 853-2187 E-mail: jpavich@pavichlawgroup.com WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Shareholder Class Suit Settled for $208.5MM -------------------------------------------------------------- David Benoit, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that Washington Mutual Inc. and other co-defendants agreed to settle a consolidated shareholder class-action lawsuit for $208.5 million: $105.0 million to be paid by WaMu and the individual defendants named, an amount covered by insurance; $85.0 million to be paid by 14 underwriting banks; and $18.5 million to be paid by Deloitte & Touche Dow Jones recounts shareholders originally filed several lawsuits in various courts essentially alleging that WaMu failed to stop them from investing when the now-failed thrift knew, or should have known, how much trouble it was in. Some of the lawsuits were filed long before the thrift's collapse, though the plaintiffs regularly updated the consolidated case to include the latest reports on Washington Mutual. The consolidated lawsuit was filed in federal court in Seattle. It also names as defendants WaMu executives and directors, the various investment banks that acted as middle men in selling the shares to the investors, and WaMu's auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP. Dow Jones says representatives of WaMu, CEO Kerry Killinger and Deloitte weren't available for comment Friday. Dow Jones also reports that the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, the lead plaintiff in the Seattle suit, on Thursday requested the judge in the case approve the settlement, which it called "an excellent result." WM WRIGHT: Recalls 48T Roman Shade Kits Due to Strangulation Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Wm. Wright Co., of Antioch, Tennessee, announced a voluntary recall of about 48,000 Roman shade make-it-yourself kits. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the shade, or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her neck. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves all Wrights(R) "my home make-it-yourself" Roman shade kits with item numbers 1451007001, 1451008001 or 1451008001A. The kit fits windows of a maximum size of 48" W x 60" L. It includes 15 yards of Roman shade tape, 15 yards of drapery cord, 4- inch "L" brackets, 18 screws, one cord cleat and instructions. The item number and "Wm. Wright Co." can be found on the back of the package. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11264.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Walmart, Jo-Ann Stores and other specialty textile and variety retail shops nationwide from December 2007 through June 2011 for between $20 and $25. Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and contact Wm. Wright for a free repair kit including a fabric voucher, new instructions and warning tags. Unused kits should be returned to place of purchase for a redesigned kit. For additional information, contact Wm. Wright toll-free at (800) 545- 5740 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.simplicity.com/ The CPSC notes that consumers should examine all shades and blinds in their home, and make sure there are no accessible cords on the front side, or back of the product. The CPSC recommends the use of cordless window coverings in all homes where children live or visit. YAHOO! INC: Faces Shareholder Class Actions in California --------------------------------------------------------- Goldfarb Branham LLP on June 30 disclosed that several class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Yahoo! Inc. investors who purchased shares of Yahoo! between April 19, 2011, and May 13, 2011. Concerned Yahoo! investors are encouraged to contact attorney Hamilton Lindley at 877-583-2855 or hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com to discuss their rights and remedies. "According to the complaints filed in the Northern District of California, the true value of an important asset of a Chinese strategic partnership was significantly overstated -- by billions," said Hamilton Lindley, a securities lawyer with the firm. "When this was revealed, Yahoo!'s stock plummeted 15% in one day alone. Our proposed lawsuit seeks to install better corporate governance at Yahoo! to deter these actions for company shareholders." Goldfarb Branham represents individual and institutional shareholders in securities litigation nationwide. The firm has been selected as lead counsel on high profile shareholder lawsuits. Current Yahoo! investors with questions or concerns, or individuals with knowledge about the allegations in the complaints, should contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. Goldfarb Branham LLP 2501 N. Harwood, Ste. 1801 Dallas, TX 75201 Toll Free: (877) 583-2855 Telephone: (214) 583-2233 E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com Web site: http://www.goldfarbbranham.com * Law Firms in Calif. Hires More to Defend Wage-and-Hour Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that law firms in California are hiring more employment law associates to help defend companies seeing a spike in wage-and-hour and disability litigation. Hiring partners interviewed by the Recorder expect to have plenty of employment work, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision scuttling a huge class action by Wal-Mart workers. A big "kitchen sink" class action like the one in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes is unusual, according to partner Nancy Abell of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker. Smaller, more manageable classes of plaintiffs are the norm, she said. The Recorder says these firms are seeing an uptick in work: * Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, which added 10 employment laterals in California since last October and may hire five more. * Seyfarth Shaw, which added 10 employment associates in San Francisco in the past 10 months, and may be hiring more in three of its California offices. * Paul Hastings, which asked some first-year associates to start early because its labor and employment lawyers were so busy. ********* 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, Joy A. Agravante, 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 * * *