/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110706.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 132 Headlines A-POWER ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action BARNES & NOBLE: Remaining Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Still Pending BARNES & NOBLE: Finalizing Settlement of "Minor" Suit BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Laptop BJ'S WHOLESALE: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims FINISAR CORP: Appeals From Settlement Approval Still Pending FINISAR CORP: Hearing on Consolidation Plea Set for Sept. 2011 FULL TILT: Faces Class Action in New York HOME DEPOT: Sued for Discriminatorily Firing Older Employers ITURAN LOCATION: Continues to Defend Suit in Israel ITURAN LOCATION: Unit Continues to Defend TCPA Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed L'OREAL USA: Sued Over "Leave-in" Hair-Styling Product LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Settles Class Action Over Self-Help Products LOU FUSZ AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Class Action for $2.45 Million MEDTRONIC INC: Minneapolis Firefighters Suit Still Pending MEDTRONIC INC: 8th Cir. Denies Rehearing Bid in Fidelis Suit MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Remaining Claims in ICDs/CRT-Ds Suit NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Triumphs Over Fraud Suit in Massachusetts NZ TRUSTEE COS: Final Funding Approval Sought for Class Action OZ MINERALS: Shareholder Class Action Settled ROGERS & COWAN: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations SONY CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Law-Violation Suits SONY CORP: Faces Numerous Suits Over 2011 Cyber-Attacks SP AUSNET: State Hesitant to Divulge Bushfire Findings TIGER AIRWAYS: May Face Class Action Over Flight Cancellations TORONTO COMMUNITY: Disputes Wellesley Fire Class Action TOYOTA MOTOR: Taps Theodore Boutrous to Defend Acceleration Suit UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Sued Over Alleged PR Misrepresentations WESTAMERICA BANCORP: Unit Gets Prelim. OK of Class Suit Settlement WONDER AUTO: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action WALT DISNEY: Judge Certifies Blind Persons' Class Action YUHE INT'L: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action ********* A-POWER ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on July 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The Rosen Law Firm is representing A-Power shareholders seeking to recover losses in A-Power stock. To join the A-Power class action, visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail lrosen@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. The Complaint alleges that A-Power and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading financial statements. The Complaint alleges that A-Powers financial statements filed by A-Power's main subsidiaries with Chinese regulators showed less revenue and cash balances than those filed with the SEC. As a result of this adverse news, A-Power's share price has dropped and NASDAQ has halted trading in its stock. This has caused investors substantial losses. The class action seeks to recover these losses for A-Power investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff and recover your investment losses, you must move the Court no later than August 30, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Jonathan Horne, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. 275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-686-1060 Weekends Telephone: 917-797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com jhorne@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. BARNES & NOBLE: Remaining Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ An appeal from the approval of a settlement agreement resolving a consolidated lawsuit involving a Barnes & Noble, Inc. subsidiary remains pending, according to the Company's June 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2011. A class action lawsuit -- In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation -- filed in April 2002, named over one thousand individuals and 300 corporations, including Fatbrain.com, LLC, a former subsidiary of Barnes & Noble.com, and its former officers and directors. The amended complaints in the Action all allege that the initial public offering registration statements filed by the defendant issuers with the SEC, including the one filed by Fatbrain, were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the defendant underwriters were receiving excess compensation in the form of profit sharing with certain of its customers, and that some of those customers agreed to buy additional shares of the defendant issuers' common stock in the aftermarket at increasing prices. The amended complaints also allege that the allegations constitute violations of: (i) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended by the defendant issuers, the directors and officers signing the related registration statements, and the related underwriters; (ii) Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the same parties; and; (iii) the control person provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts by certain directors and officers of the defendant issuers. A motion to dismiss by the defendant issuers, including Fatbrain, was denied. After extensive negotiations among representatives of plaintiffs and defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding, outlining a proposed settlement resolving the claims in the Action between plaintiffs and the defendant issuers. Subsequently, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the defendants and plaintiffs in the Action, the terms of which are consistent with the MOU. The Settlement Agreement was submitted to the court for approval, and on February 15, 2005, the judge granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On December 5, 2006, the Federal Appeals Court for the Second Circuit (the Second Circuit) issued a decision reversing the District Court's class certification decision in six focus cases. In light of that decision, the District Court stayed all proceedings, including consideration of the settlement. In January 2007, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the Second Circuit, which was denied in April 2007. On May 30, 2007, plaintiffs moved, before the District Court, to certify a new class. On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an order terminating the Settlement Agreement. On October 2, 2008, plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the class certification motion. On October 10, 2008, the District Court signed an order granting the request. A Settlement Agreement in principle, subject to court approval, was negotiated among counsel for all of the issuers, plaintiffs, insurers and underwriters, and executed by Barnes & Noble. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the court on June 10, 2009, and final court approval of the settlement was granted on October 5, 2009. Pursuant to the settlement, no settlement payment will be made by the Company. Since that time, various notices of appeal have been filed by certain objectors on an interlocutory basis, two of which have been dismissed. The remaining appeal has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. Should the remaining appeal be successful and the approval of the settlement overturned, the Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. BARNES & NOBLE: Finalizing Settlement of "Minor" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Parties to a purported class action lawsuit against a Barnes & Noble, Inc. subsidiary are finalizing a settlement, according to the Company's June 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2011. On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed against B&N Booksellers, Inc., in the Superior Court for the State of California captioned Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., alleging wage payments by instruments in a form that did not comply with the requirements of the California Labor Code, allegedly resulting in impermissible wage payment reductions and calling for imposition of statutory penalties. The complaint also alleges a violation of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act and seeks restitution of such allegedly unpaid wages under California's unfair competition law, and an injunction compelling compliance with the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges two subclasses of 500 and 200 employees, respectively (there may be overlap among the subclasses), but contains no allegations concerning the number of alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class. On June 3, 2009, B&N Booksellers filed an answer denying all claims. Discovery concerning purported class member payroll checks and related information is ongoing. On August 19, 2010, B&N Booksellers filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of a class representative when the named plaintiff advised she did not wish to continue to serve in that role. On October 15, 2010, the Court issued an order denying B&N Bookseller's motion to dismiss. The Court further ruled that Ms. Minor could not serve as a class representative. The Court also granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to previously-served discovery seeking contact information for the putative class. B&N Booksellers provided that information on October 15, 2010. The previously scheduled Case Management Conference was continued to January 27, 2011. Plaintiff's counsel filed an amended complaint on January 26, 2011, adding two new named Plaintiffs, Jacob Allum and Cesar Caminiero. At the Case Management Conference held on January 27, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to complete mediation by May 6, 2011. The parties held a mediation on April 11, 2011. The parties have reached a tentative resolution of this matter and are finalizing the settlement which will be subject to court approval. This settlement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Laptop ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a hospital and cancer center allowed a laptop computer stuffed with unencrypted, confidential information on its patients to be stolen, and did not notify patients of the data theft for 8 weeks, patients say in a class action. Named plaintiff Rita Barricks claims the laptop was stolen during the weekend of Dec. 4, 2010, from Barnes-Jewish Hospital dba The Siteman Cancer Center, a joint venture between Washington University and Barnes-Jewish Hospital. Ms. Barricks says the computer contained patients' names, addresses, phone numbers, birth dates, Social Security numbers, medical records, diagnoses, lab results, e-mail addresses, insurance information and employment information. "WashU and BJC have a policy of encrypting the sensitive information of plaintiffs," according to the complaint City Court. "However, the stolen laptop was unencrypted and contained unencrypted sensitive information." Ms. Barricks claims the defendants immediately knew about the theft, but waited 8 weeks -- until Jan. 28 -- to inform patients. During that time, Ms. Barricks says, her identity was stolen. "The identity theft involved unauthorized attempts to access plaintiff's online banking account, application of unauthorized charges to plaintiff's bank account, and unauthorized access to plaintiff's email account for the purpose of soliciting money from some or all of plaintiff's email contacts," the complaint states. Ms. Barricks claims the defendants' offer to monitor patients' credit through TransUnion TransCredit for 1 year is "woefully insufficient," because identity theft victims often face years of theft, not to mention the humiliation of having her confidential medical information hacked. She claims the defendants, which include Washington University and its medical school, violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by failing to maintain an adequate security system; failing to encrypt patients' sensitive information; failing to implement policies that allowed access to electronically stored health information only to those granted access; and failing to prevent removal of electronically protected health information from its facility. Ms. Barricks seeks damages and restitution for identity theft and an injunction requiring the defendants to collect and store patients' data according to HIPAA standards. A copy of the Complaint in Barricks v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, et al., Case No. 1122-CC08701 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/JewishHospital.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil Smith, Esq. THE SMITH LAW FIRM, LLC 225 S. Meramec Ave., Suite 532 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-4400 E-mail: neil@neilsmithlaw.com BJ'S WHOLESALE: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say BJ's Wholesale Club is selling itself too cheaply to Leonard Green & Partners and Beacon Merger Sub, for $2.8 billion or $51.25 a share. A copy of the Complaint in Phillips v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., et al., Case No. 6623 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Strum, Esq. James P. McEvilly, III, Esq. 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-983-9330 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com FINISAR CORP: Appeals From Settlement Approval Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Appeals from the approval of a settlement in the consolidated class action lawsuit against Finisar Corporation remain pending, 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. A securities class action lawsuit was filed on November 30, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from November 17, 1999, through Dec. 6, 2000. The complaint named as defendants the Company, Jerry S. Rawls, its Chairman of the Board and formerly its President and Chief Executive Officer, Frank H. Levinson, its former Chairman of the Board and Chief Technical Officer, Stephen K. Workman, its former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and an investment banking firm that served as an underwriter for its initial public offering in November 1999 and a secondary offering in April 2000. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the registration statements for the offerings failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the underwriter had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriter allocated to those investors material portions of the shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings and (ii) the underwriter had entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriter agreed to allocate shares of the Company stock sold in the offerings to those customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company stock in the after market at pre-determined prices. No specific damages are claimed. Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, which were consolidated for pretrial purposes. In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. In February 2009, the parties reached an understanding regarding the principal elements of a settlement, subject to formal documentation and Court approval. Under the settlement, the underwriter defendants will pay a total of $486 million, and the issuer defendants and their insurers will pay a total of $100 million to settle all of the cases. On August 25, 2009, the Company funded approximately $327,000 with respect to its pro rata share of the issuers' contribution to the settlement and certain costs. This amount was accrued in the Company's consolidated financial statements during the first quarter of fiscal 2011. On October 2, 2009, the Court granted approval of the settlement and on November 19, 2009, the Court entered final judgment. The judgment has been appealed by certain individual class members. No further updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC filing. FINISAR CORP: Hearing on Consolidation Plea Set for Sept. 2011 -------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to consolidate and appoint lead plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuits filed against Finisar Corporation will be heard in September 2011, 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. Several securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and its Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer following its March 8, 2011 announcement of unaudited financial results for the third quarter of fiscal 2011 and its financial outlook for the fourth quarter. The Company also has been named as a nominal defendant in several shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in 2011 concerning its March 8, 2011 earnings announcement and filed in 2007 concerning the granting of stock options. The securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's March 8, 2011, earnings announcement allege claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased stock between December 1 and 2, 2010, through March 8, 2011. The named defendants are Finisar and its Chairman of the Board, CEO and CFO. To date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged. The cases have been related, and motions to consolidate and appoint lead plaintiffs have been filed and will be heard in September 2011. The Company says it will continue to incur legal fees in all of the class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative cases, including expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of present and former officers and directors under indemnification obligations. The expense of continuing to defend such litigation may be significant. The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, however there can be no assurance that it will be successful in any defense. If any of the lawsuits related to the Company's earnings announcement are adversely decided, it may be liable for significant damages directly or under its indemnification obligations, which could adversely affect its business, results of operations and cash flows. Further, the amount of time that will be required to resolve these lawsuits is unpredictable and these actions may divert management's attention from the day-to-day operations of the Company's business, which could adversely affect its business, results of operations and cash flows. FULL TILT: Faces Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------- Chad Holloway, writing for PokerNews, reports that on June 30, 2011, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court South District of New York against Full Tilt Poker demanding the return of players' funds and for subsequent damages, purported to be more than $150 million. The class-action complaint was brought by plaintiffs Steve Segal, Nick Hammer, Robin Hougdahl, and Todd Terry "on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated." The complaint names nine corporate entities/companies, 15 persons, and "John Does," which leaves open the possibility of attaching other names at later dates. The companies named are largely those that comprise "Full Tilt," while the names listed include Raymond Bitar and Nelson Burtnick; in addition, many members of Team Full Tilt are listed including Howard Lederer, Phil Ivey, Chris Ferguson, John Juanda, Jennifer Harman-Traniello, Phil Gordon, Erick Lindgren, Erik Seidel, Andy Bloch, Mike Matusow, Gus Hansen, Allen Cunningham, and Patrik Antonius. The complaint essentially uses the following boilerplate paragraph in naming each member of Team Full Tilt: "[Name] is an individual residing in the State of Nevada, and is a member of the Enterprise. At all of some relevant time(s), [Name] has been a shareholder and director of Full Tilt and/or one or more Full Tilt Companies. [Name], a professional poker player himself, is a member of Team Full Tilt and represents the Full Tilt brand in poker-related events all over the world, wearing clothing and accessories that bear the easily recognizable Full Tilt Poker patch." According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs (Mr. Segal is a resident of New York; Messrs. Hammer and Hougdahl of Minnesota; and Terry of New Jersey) "represent a nation-wide class of Full Tilt account holders residing in the United States . . . Plaintiffs bring suit to demand return of U.S. player funds and for damages . . . U.S. Players' would never have suffered injury, but for the Defendants' widespread scheme to commit wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering in order to pad their own pockets. Other allegations/facts put forth in the complaint include: * "Perhaps most importantly, all members of the Team [Full Tilt] own an equity interest in -- and are directors of -- the Full Tilt and/or the entities that operate under the Full Tilt name." (pg. 5) * "U.S. players are wrongfully denied access to approximately $150 million in funds they deposited in their own Player Accounts. After deceitfully separating U.S. players from their money, Full Tilt Poker refuses to refund the U.S. players' deposits, to reimburse U.S. players for the dollar-value of the contents of their Player Accounts, or to permit U.S. players access to their Player Accounts." (pg. 6) * "The Predicate Acts of Wire Fraud, Bank Fraud and Money Laundering Directly Harmed Plaintiffs." (pg. 31) * "All Defendants, by virtue of their control and ownership of the Full Tilt Companies that comprise the Full Tilt umbrella, and/or their ownership stakes in the umbrella undertaking, are liable for conversion of Plaintiffs' and class members' monies and assets held in Plaintiffs' and class members' Full Tilt Player Accounts. The Player Accounts and the property therein are currently and wrongfully in the exclusive custody of the Defendants." (pg. 43) * Claims Ivey has at least a 5% stake in Full Tilt. (pg. 13) * Full Tilt's "pattern of racketeering" is proximate cause of injuries to plaintiffs. Jury trial demanded. This class-action complaint was brought on the same day that the LA Times released a story that Full Tilt Poker was to be sold to a group of European investors, which hinted that player refunds would likely follow. What effect that will have on this lawsuit remains to be seen. HOME DEPOT: Sued for Discriminatorily Firing Older Employers ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action accuses Home Depot of "systematic and "disproportionate" firing of older workers. A copy of the Complaint in Griffin, et al. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02366 (D. Kan.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/HomeDepot.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bert S. Braud, Esq. THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, P.C. 712 Broadway, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 221-2288 E-mail: bbraud@pophamlaw.com - and - Tiffany B. Klosener, Esq. THE KLOSENER LAW FIRM 5914 NE Ruby Drive Lee's Summit, MO 64064 Telephone: (816) 392-1768 E-mail: klosenerlaw@sbcglobal.net ITURAN LOCATION: Continues to Defend Suit in Israel --------------------------------------------------- Ituran Location and Control Ltd. continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit in Israel, 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 March 21, 2011, the Company received a purported class action lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, by one plaintiff who is a subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices Law, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and discriminated between its customers. The plaintiff claims that the alleged discrimination resulted from the Company charging higher monthly subscription fees from customers who are obliged by insurance company requirements to install location and recovery systems in their vehicles than the monthly subscription fees that are charged from customers who are not required by insurance companies to install location and recovery systems in their vehicles. The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total amount claimed if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS75 million (US$ 21.1 million). Based on the opinion of the Company's legal counsel, the Company is of the opinion that the lawsuit lacks substantiation, includes incorrect assumptions and inconsistent claims and that the Company has good defense arguments in respect of the claims made by the plaintiff. At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. ITURAN LOCATION: Unit Continues to Defend TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Ituran Location and Control Ltd. continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania, 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 July 8, 2005, a class action was filed against a subsidiary of the Company, Ituran Florida Corporation, in the First Judicial District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit claims that Ituran Florida sent fax advertisements to the named plaintiff and the other members of the class allegedly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Ituran Florida filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings that such claims should not be heard as part of a class action. Such motion was denied by the court, the precertification discovery process was completed and a certification hearing is yet to be scheduled. The plaintiff agreed to limit the class action to Pennsylvania actions only. If the plaintiffs prevail, the Company estimates that the subsidiary may have exposure pursuant to the provisions of the TCPA in the maximum range of $500,000 to $750,000 for all class plaintiffs, plus punitive damages and expenses. However, based upon rulings by the Court in Philadelphia in another matter, the Company believes that the class action will be certified but that it is probable that a significant portion of the individual class members will unlikely qualify for inclusion in a class or be able to satisfy the burden of proof necessary for compensation. Even if the plaintiffs prevail, the Company believes that the resolution of this claim will not have a material effect on its revenues, operations or liquidity. JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------- Anna Timone, writing for FXstreet.com, reports that JPMorgan Chase & Co. lost a petition for dismissal of a lawsuit in which consumers accused the second- biggest U.S. bank of wrongly cutting home-equity lines of credit. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in Chicago allowed a case against JPMorgan Chase & Co. to go forward on some claims while dismissing allegations that the lender had engaged in fraudulent practices. The ruling comes in a consolidated class action, or group lawsuit, alleging that the lender had retracted or crimped those lines of credit without any justification for doing so. The bank had sought to dismiss the action in its entirety. Justice Pallmeyer stated in her decision that plaintiffs' allegations that defendant reduced or suspended their HELOCs without adequate justification are sufficient to state claims for breach of contract under Minnesota, California, Texas and Delaware law. The next step for the plaintiffs is to seek class-wide certification. According to some legal experts, there are thousands of similarly situated potential class members. L'OREAL USA: Sued Over "Leave-in" Hair-Styling Product ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims L'Oreal failed to warn that the two main ingredients in its "leave-in" hair-styling product, Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine Anti-Frizz Serum, "are flammable upon contact with temperatures reached by most hair styling appliances." A copy of the Complaint in Altamura, et al. v. L'Oreal, USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-05465 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/Flaming.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 601 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 400-1050 E-mail: akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com - and - Grace Parasmo, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 E-mail: gparasmo@kamberlaw.com - and - Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq. WILSON TROSCLAIR & LOVINS, PLLC 302 North Market Street, Suite 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 484-1930 E-mail: jeremy@wilsontrosclair.com LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Settles Class Action Over Self-Help Products --------------------------------------------------------------- LegalZoom.com, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to settle the pending class action, Webster v. LegalZoom.com, Inc. The settlement will also resolve claims in a related class action, Whiting v. LegalZoom.com, Inc. The Plaintiffs alleged claims related to LegalZoom's offering of legal self-help products over the Internet. Neither case alleged that LegalZoom's documents were defective in any manner. Plaintiffs have now requested that the Court certify a class, for settlement purposes only, consisting of all LegalZoom customers over the past six years. Under the terms of the proposed global settlement, which must be approved by California Superior Court Judge William Highberger, LegalZoom will provide two months of membership in LegalZoom's Legal Advantage Plus or Business Advantage Pro plan, depending on the product each customer purchased. LegalZoom's Legal Advantage plans are monthly membership plans which provide members with access to attorney consultations, access to LegalZoom's extensive legal form database, and other benefits. "Our intent is to achieve a resolution of these lawsuits and avoid a prolonged and costly litigation process. While we continue to dispute the basis of the allegations in the cases, and are confident we are not engaged in any of the activities set forth in the complaints, we believe it is in the best interests of the Company and our customers to move forward with the proposed settlements," said Kenneth Friedman, Vice President of Legal and Government Affairs at LegalZoom. "Our customers will have access to Legal Advantage plans, enabling them to speak to a locally-licensed attorney to supplement the self-help legal forms available on LegalZoom.com," said John Suh, CEO of LegalZoom. "A final settlement will allow us to focus on what we do best; provide Americans greater access to high quality, reasonably priced legal solutions that leverage modern technology." In Webster, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that LegalZoom's Web site included misleading statements that LegalZoom would provide legal advice to its customers, which lead to the unjustified belief that LegalZoom was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. In Whiting, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged technical non-compliance with an outdated statute that was never intended to apply to the Internet age. "The proposed settlement contains no admission or finding of wrongdoing by the Company. LegalZoom believes that all Americans have the right to affordable and convenient legal protection. We look forward to continuing our important work," added Mr. Friedman. About LegalZoom.com LegalZoom -- http://www.legalzoom.com-- is a provider of online legal document services to small businesses and families. Headquartered in Glendale, California, with offices in Austin, Texas, the company has over 500 employees. LOU FUSZ AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Class Action for $2.45 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Rick Desloge, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports that The Lou Fusz Automotive Network has agreed to pay $2.45 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by customers. The three-year-old case stems from processing fees that Lou Fusz Automotive charged customers to prepare documents used in the sale or lease of cars and trucks. Under terms of the settlement, about 62,000 people who purchased or leased autos from Lou Fusz dealerships will be eligible for gift cards worth anywhere from $45 to $75 for goods and services at Lou Fusz locations. People cashing in gift cards potentially could double the amount if they use them to buy or lease another new car or truck from Fusz. The Simon Law Firm in St. Louis represented the customers in the lawsuit. The firm will receive $245,000 as part of the settlement. The St. Louis County Circuit Court gave preliminary approval May 2 to the agreement, and post cards were mailed June 16 to people who purchased or leased cars who were identified as part of the class. Simon Law Firm claimed the document preparation fee was illegal. It cited a 2008 Missouri Supreme Court ruling in a similar case involving Countrywide Home Loans Inc., where the high court ruled such fees amounted to the unauthorized practice of law. "We expected dealerships to stop charging the fees," said John Campbell, the lead attorney in the case for the Simon Law Firm, which has brought similar suits against other auto dealers. He said the Fusz settlement is among the largest of several similar cases in Missouri. David Wasinger of the Wasinger Law Group in Brentwood, also represented the plaintiff class. Pete Ramey, secretary of Lou Fusz Automotive Network, and attorney Jay Kanzler of the Witzel & Kanzler law firm, which handled the case for Fusz Automotive, referred questions about the case to Lou Fusz Jr., president and CEO of the company. He could not be reached for comment. Fusz Automotive, as part of the settlement, did not admit to any allegations made in the lawsuit. Lou Fusz Automotive is among the largest auto dealers in St. Louis, selling 20,682 vehicles in 2009, and 19,369 vehicles in 2010, according to Missouri records. The $245,000 cash going to the Simon firm was computed by figuring 10 percent of the overall cash value of the settlement, according to the settlement document. At that percentage, the cash portion of the settlement is considered comparatively low, said John Ammann, a professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law and director of the school's legal clinic. Attorney fees in similar class action cases typically start at 25% of the value of the settlement and range up to one-third of the value. Mr. Campbell, who said he was aware that critics might question the settlement terms, said the gift card portion was structured to provide value to customers who paid the processing fee and allow Fusz to maintain relationships with its customers. The alternative was to distribute checks with a much lower cash value, he said. MEDTRONIC INC: Minneapolis Firefighters Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action lawsuit commenced by the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association is still pending in Minnesota, according to Medtronic, Inc.'s June 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 29, 2011. On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and certain current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading public statements concerning the INFUSE Bone Graft product which artificially inflated Medtronic's stock price during the period. On August 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action complaint expanding the class. Medtronic's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied on February 3, 2010, and pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. MEDTRONIC INC: 8th Cir. Denies Rehearing Bid in Fidelis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed plaintiffs' petition for a rehearing of their failed appeal from the dismissal of their lawsuits relating to Medtronic, Inc.'s Fidelis defibrillation leads, 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. On October 15, 2007, the Company voluntarily suspended worldwide distribution of its Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) family of defibrillation leads. As of April 29, 2011, approximately 4,000 lawsuits regarding the Fidelis leads had been filed against the Company, including approximately 47 putative class action lawsuits reflecting a total of approximately 9,000 individual personal injury cases. Approximately 2,800 of the lawsuits were commenced in Minnesota state court and approximately 1,200 were consolidated for pretrial proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) rules. On January 5, 2009, the MDL court dismissed with prejudice the master consolidated complaint for individuals and the master consolidated complaint for third-party payors on grounds of federal preemption. The state court judge dismissed the state court cases on similar grounds on October 22, 2009. Plaintiffs sought appeals in both the federal and state court matters. The Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on May 16, 2011. On October 15, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. On October 29, 2010, plaintiffs petitioned the Eighth Circuit for rehearing of their appeal. On June 14, 2011, the Eighth Circuit dismissed this petition for rehearing. The Company announced on October 14, 2010, it had entered into an agreement to settle the pending lawsuits as well as certain unfiled claims subject to opt-out rights by both plaintiffs and the Company, including the Company's right to cancel the agreement. The terms of the agreement stipulated that, if Medtronic elected not to cancel the agreement, it would pay plaintiffs to settle substantially all pending U.S. lawsuits and claims, subject to certain conditions. The parties subsequently reached an adjusted settlement agreement pursuant to which Medtronic waived its right to cancel the agreement and agreed to pay a total of $221 million to resolve over 14,000 filed and unfiled claims. In the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, the Company recorded an expense of $268 million related to probable and reasonably estimated damages under U.S. GAAP in connection with these matters, and, consistent with the adjusted settlement agreement, the Company reduced that expense to $221 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011. In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada. On October 20, 2009, that court certified a class proceeding, but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, which the plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2010, the appeal was denied. Plaintiffs' request for further appeal was denied on November 22, 2010. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with that matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Remaining Claims in ICDs/CRT-Ds Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic, Inc., settled the remaining claims in the lawsuits over its implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds) last 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. On February 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise physicians about the possibility that a specific battery shorting mechanism might manifest itself in a subset of ICDs and CRT-Ds. These included certain Marquis VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D devices. Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits were filed against the Company alleging a variety of claims, including individuals asserting claims of personal injury and third-party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement. These United States lawsuits were settled in 2008, and only a small number of individual cases remain. One third-party payor, Kinetic Knife, dismissed its original action without prejudice and on November 5, 2008, filed a putative class action relating to the same subject matter. Medtronic removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On April 19, 2011, the court dismissed on preemption grounds the majority of plaintiff's claims. In June 2011, the Company settled the remaining claims for final resolution of this matter. In addition, class action product liability lawsuits pending in Canada are consolidated in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. That court certified a class of individual implant recipients and their family members for proceeding on December 6, 2007. Additionally, the subrogated claims of the provincial health insurers to recover costs incurred in providing medical services to the implant class are claimed in the class proceeding. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages for the remaining lawsuits because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP, and based on current information, the Company does not believe that these lawsuits are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's operations. NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Triumphs Over Fraud Suit in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- A Massachusetts judge dismissed a putative federal securities class action lawsuit against Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., and its president and chief executive officer, according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In its June 28, 2011 statement, the Company reveals that on June 23, 2011, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton allowed the defendants' motion to dismiss the putative federal securities fraud class action lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in March 2010 entitled Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald v. Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. and Harry S. Palmin (Civil Action No. 10-10394-NMG). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the progress of the Phase 3 clinical trial before the United States Food and Drug Administration of Novelos' oxidized glutathione compound, NOV-002, in application to non- small cell lung cancer. On February 24, 2010, Novelos announced that the Phase 3 trial had concluded unsuccessfully, and the price per share of Novelos' common stock dropped by approximately 80% from its close on the prior day. In dismissing the action without prejudice, Judge Gorton concluded that the statements made by Mr. Palmin to which the plaintiffs objected were not misleading, and endorsed the "competing and more persuasive non-fraudulent inference that Mr. Palmin understood that alleged changes to the NOV-002 specifications presented to the FDA affected only the color specifications rather than the effectiveness or fundamental composition of the drug." Novelos and Mr. Palmin were defended by Foley Hoag LLP. About Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. Novelos is a pharmaceutical company developing novel drugs for the treatment and diagnosis of cancer. The Company currently has three cancer-targeted compounds, which are selectively taken up and retained in cancer cells (including cancer stem cells) versus normal cells. Thus, the Company's therapeutic compounds directly kill cancer cells while minimizing harm to normal cells. This offers the potential for a paradigm shift in cancer therapy -- efficacy versus all three major drivers of mortality in cancer: primary tumors, metastases and stem cell-based relapse. LIGHT is a small-molecule cancer imaging agent. The Company believes LIGHT has first-in-class potential and expects it to enter Phase 1/2 clinical trials in the third quarter of this year. HOT is a small-molecule, broad-spectrum, cancer-targeted molecular radiotherapeutic that delivers radiation directly and selectively to cancer cells and cancer stem cells. The Company believes HOT also has first-in-class potential, and expects it to enter a Phase 1b dose escalation trial in the third quarter of this year, and Phase 2 trials in mid-2012 as a monotherapy for solid tumors with significant unmet medical need. COLD, a cancer-targeted chemotherapy that the Company expects to enter clinical trials late in 2012, works primarily through Akt inhibition. Together, the Company believes its compounds are able to "find, treat and follow" cancer anywhere in the body in a novel, effective and highly selective way. NZ TRUSTEE COS: Final Funding Approval Sought for Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Gray, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reports that Auckland law firm Turner Hopkins is still collecting evidence for its planned class action against the trustee companies of some failed finance firms and hopes to have final funding approval for the lawsuit within a month or two. The firm has been seeking expressions of interest from investors who lost about NZD8 billion after the collapse of several New Zealand finance companies between 2006 and 2009. The class action claims are expected to allege a breach of trust on the part of the corporate trustees appointed to monitor and supervise the activities of the failed companies and protect investors. Turner Hopkins, which has teamed up with Australian legal giant Slater and Gordon, is briefing experts and lining up witnesses. "We've got a number of things on the go at the moment before we get the final nod for funding," said Turner Hopkins lawyer Andrew Hooker. Several investors, representing well over 2000 investments, have registered their interest in taking part in the litigation. Mr. Hooker has been down the track of claiming against financial advisers but "none of them have got any money". "It's a matter of saying what other people could be culpable and, in my view, the people at the top of the list are the trustees. "Quite a few so-called insiders have been in touch with us, so we are starting to talk with them about what went on in some of these trustee companies," Mr. Hooker said. OZ MINERALS: Shareholder Class Action Settled --------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that class action settlement on behalf of more than 7,500 individuals who purchased shares in the minerals resources company Oz Minerals in 2008 was settled on July 1 by the Federal Court. The class action was conducted by law firm Slater & Gordon with the support of Litigation Lending Services. The small investors who purchased shares in Oz Minerals between February and December 2008 would share in at least AU$16 million in compensation, after the deduction of legal and funding costs, Slater & Gordon said in a statement. About 80% of class members who suffered a loss are expected to receive between AU$100 and AU$5,000 depending on when and the number of shares they purchased. Slater & Gordon said the settlement was the first shareholder class action where multiple shareholder actions were issued, demonstrating that multiple actions were no barrier to resolving claims efficiently. ROGERS & COWAN: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Joshua L. Weinstein & Pamela Chelin, writing for TheWrap, report that a former Rogers & Cowan account coordinator has filed a class action lawsuit against the public relations firm, accusing it of consistently violating California's labor laws by, among other charges, requiring employees to "volunteer" to work for free. In the 30-page lawsuit, filed on June 30 by Paul T. Cullen of the Cullen Law Firm and obtained by TheWrap, former Rogers & Cowan employee Daniel Malakhov claims that he and other company staffers were required to work after their regular shifts were over "without any pay whatsoever." Mr. Malakhov worked at Rogers & Cowan's Pacific Design Center offices in West Hollywood. The suit doesn't specify when he worked there. Mr. Malakhov said the company refused to pay overtime and didn't provide appropriate meal and rest periods. It also says their wage statements and paystubs were inaccurate and were made to "work in a business environment where they were routinely and uniformly subjected to unfair business practices." Tom Tardio, Rogers & Cowan's CEO, was not available for comment on June 30. The lawsuit says that Rogers & Cowan "may contend that any such tasks were done on a volunteer basis . . . failure to 'volunteer' to work for the defendants at such after-hours events would negatively affect their ability to advance their careers." It's a class action suit, which means that lawyers believe many Rogers & Cowan employees and former employees were mistreated by the company. The suit estimates that more than 500 people are entitled to money from the PR firm. The lawsuit asks for unpaid wages, penalties and other compensation. Mr. Cullen told TheWrap that he expects to ask a jury to award the plaintiffs millions of dollars. Rogers & Cowan is well known for representing clients in the entertainment industry. SONY CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Law-Violation Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Sony Corporation continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries from purported class action lawsuits alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. In October 2009, Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony Optiarc America Inc., received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice seeking information about its optical disk drive business. Sony understands that the DOJ and agencies outside the United States are investigating competition in optical disk drives. Subsequently, a number of purported class action lawsuits were filed in certain jurisdictions, including the United States, in which the plaintiffs allege that Sony Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries violated antitrust laws and seek recovery of damages and other remedies. Based on the stage of these proceedings, it is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of possible loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments, settlements or other resolution of these matters. SONY CORP: Faces Numerous Suits Over 2011 Cyber-Attacks ------------------------------------------------------- Sony Corporation is facing numerous purported class action lawsuits arising from the 2011 cyber-attack on its and its subsidiaries' Web sites, according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. Beginning earlier in 2011, the network services of PlayStation(R)Network, Qriocity(TM), Sony Online Entertainment LLC and Web sites of other subsidiaries came under cyber-attack. As of June 28, 2011, Sony has not received any confirmed reports of customer identity theft issues or misuse of credit cards from such cyber-attacks. However, in connection with certain of these matters, Sony has received inquiries from authorities in a number of jurisdictions, including orders for reports issued by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan as well as the Financial Services Agency of Japan, formal and/or informal requests for information from Attorneys General from a number of states in the United States and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, various U.S. congressional inquiries and others. Additionally, Sony Corporation and/or certain of its subsidiaries have been named in a number of purported class actions in certain jurisdictions, including the United States. Based on the stage of these inquiries and proceedings, it is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of possible loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments, settlements or other resolution of these matters. SP AUSNET: State Hesitant to Divulge Bushfire Findings ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Bachelard, writing for The Age, reports that the state government spent AU$90 million on the Bushfires Royal Commission, but now it wants to prevent the judge who is hearing a class action over the most deadly of the fires from seeing the commissioners' findings. Justice Terry Forrest told lawyers in a case conference last month that he felt he was "going down a mine without a light" because the government lawyers had not allowed him to read the findings and legal arguments from the royal commission. He is trying to prepare himself to hear a complex class action against power company SP AusNet, its contractor Utility Services Corporation, and the Country Fire Authority and others, for alleged negligence over the Kilmore-Kinglake fire on Black Saturday. The fire killed 119 people and caused hundreds of millions of dollars' damage. "I find it very difficult to understand a number of the contentions contained in the pleadings," Justice Forrest told lawyers on May 27. "It does seem to me to make it very difficult for us . . . You need to know the background." Lawyers representing the victims of the fire, as well as the lawyers for SP AusNet, are willing for the judge to read the hundreds of pages of material and legal arguments. Andrew Watson, a senior lawyer for Maurice Blackburn, which represents the victims, told The Sunday Age: "We believe that the court should have access to all of the submissions and findings of the Bushfires Royal Commission." But Chris Caleo, SC, representing the state (which includes the police, the CFA and the Department of Sustainability and Environment) said his client would not allow it. He did not give a reason, and nor did Justice Forrest ask for one, saying only that: "I will not read the material over objection." Utility Services Corporation -- the company that employed the inspector who allegedly failed to notice damage to the powerline which broke on the morning of Black Saturday -- was the only other party to object. Bushfire Minister Peter Ryan was a regular attendee at the Bushfires Royal Commission, and has promised to implement all its recommendations. His spokeswoman told The Sunday Age that legal argument was still under way and would return to court on August 12. The parties are now discussing whether they want another judge, Associate Justice Rita Zammit -- who is helping Justice Forrest with the case management -- to read the files. Mr. Caleo said he would need to seek instructions from the state government on that subject. They will return with their position on August 12. TIGER AIRWAYS: May Face Class Action Over Flight Cancellations -------------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Clare, writing for Sunshine Coast Daily, reports that a Melbourne businessman is considering launching a class action against grounded carrier Tiger Airways after his family's Sunshine Coast holiday plans were thrown into chaos. Nick Kenfield had no idea his flight had been cancelled until he arrived at Melbourne airport at 4:30 a.m. on July 2. Police patrolling the grounds had to deliver the Geelong father the news that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority had suspended the operations of Tiger for one week due to several safety concerns. It cost Mr. Kenfield about AU$550 for a last-minute one-way ticket with Virgin to Brisbane, where he then jumped on a bus to make his way to Mooloolaba. His mother and sister, who were flying from Sydney to the Sunshine Coast, had to fork out AU$600 extra between them. His father managed to secure a $100 ticket on a late-night flight on July 3. Mr. Kenfield said Tiger's offer of a refund or travel voucher was not adequate. "Our family is seriously out of pocket and we are not alone," he said. "I would understand if it was because of an ash cloud because that would be out of their control. "But this is ridiculous. It seems they are only looking after themselves." Mr. Kenfield said after the safety authority issued Tiger with a show-cause notice in March, the airline should have improved. "But CASA has found there have been further events raising concerns about the airline's ability to continue to conduct operations safely," he said. "A lawsuit might be the only way people are going to be reimbursed and I am going to look into the legalities of it." Mr. Kenfield said he had flown with Tiger about four times. "Yes, Tiger has cheap flights and when you are looking at AU$69 over AU$269, it is easy to be swayed by price," he said. "But this incident is the last straw. I got no personal sorry from Tiger, no let me help you, nothing. "Our accommodation was paid for and my young son, who lives on the Coast, was looking forward to my visit. "We didn't want to just cancel our plans which had been in place for a long time." Tiger Airways says it has already taken steps to address the safety concerns that led to it being grounded. TORONTO COMMUNITY: Disputes Wellesley Fire Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Donovan Vincent, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Toronto Community Housing says the compensation plan it has offered to tenants affected by last September's fire at 200 Wellesley has been "highly successful" and negates the need for a class-action lawsuit, court documents show. Hundreds of residents affected by the six-alarm fire on Sept. 24, 2010, have signed up to be part of the class action against TCHC and Greenwin, the property management company operating the 29- storey highrise at the time of the fire. The plaintiffs, led by Jo-Anne Blair, who lived across the hall from the unit where the fire broke out, are seeking damages for the inconvenience of being uprooted, loss of property, psychological distress, among other things. Three days have been set aside this week in Superior Court, during which a judge will hear arguments over whether the class action should be certified, a designation necessary for the claim to go forward. The base amount of compensation available to those with property damage ranges between C$4,700 and C$6,900, depending on unit size and duration of disruption to tenants, plus C$1,700 to C$1,900 for each additional occupant of a unit, according to the TCHC offer. About half of the roughly 1,100 tenants in the building have accepted the offer; TCHC has paid out about C$1.3 million. In its court filings for this week's hearings, TCHC argues the compensation plan has been "highly successful" because it allowed tenants to resolve their claims against TCHC in an "expeditious manner, at no cost to themselves." Those seeking not to accept the package can go to the Landlord and Tenant Board, TCHC added. A central point of the tenants' lawsuit is that TCHC knew there was a problem with hoarding in the unit where the fire started. In their statement of claim, tenants argue that the agency failed to remedy the problem. Brian Shell, the lawyer representing tenants in the class action bid, says an adjuster has determined that tenants joining the suit are looking at an average of between C$25,000 to C$30,000 in damages if it goes forward. Because there are so many tenants in the building battling physical or mental health disabilities, many of them will feel pressure to accept TCHC's offer, Mr. Shell said, arguing TCHC is using this as subtle tactic. TOYOTA MOTOR: Taps Theodore Boutrous to Defend Acceleration Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted at The Am Law Daily by Tom Huddleston Jr., Toyota Motor Corp. has hired a heavy-hitter to boost its chances of appealing the class-action ruling in the case of defective accelerator pedals on its cars and trucks. The car maker's legal team now includes Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous, according to The National Law Journal. Mr. Boutrous, a partner in the firm's Los Angeles office, is cochair of Gibson Dunn's appellate and constitutional law group, media and entertainment group, and crisis group, as well as the firm's transnational litigation and foreign judgments group. Litigation associate Theane Kapur also will be working on the appeal with Mr. Boutrous, the NLJ reports. The two join a Toyota legal team handling the multidistrict litigation -- the 200 economic-loss cases were recently consolidated into a single class-action suit by a federal judge in Santa Ana, Calif. Toyota plans to appeal U.S. District Judge James Selna's December 2010 rejection of the company's motion to dismiss the class action. The litigation followed a Toyota recall of roughly 10 million vehicles in January 2010 on account of defective accelerator pedals and floor mats that have been blamed for sudden acceleration. The class action was filed on behalf of nationwide consumers seeking damages due to the defects' affect on the value of their vehicles. Toyota's appeal is largely based on the argument that many of the consumers in the class action did not suffer from monetary loss or property damage to their cars, many of which Toyota says never actually accelerated as a result of the defects. Toyota's legal team on the matter also includes Lisa Gilford, a litigation partner in the Los Angeles office of Alston & Bird. In April, Toyota prevailed in the first of the sudden acceleration cases to go to trial. A federal jury in New York found the company was not liable in Amir Sitafalwalla's 2005 accident in a Scion, according to an April 1 report from the NLJ. No other cases are expected to go to trial before 2012. Mr. Boutrous is joining the Toyota defense fresh off his win for client Wal-Mart in the company's decade-long effort to thwart a discrimination class action filed on behalf of more than 1 million current and former female workers. UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Sued Over Alleged PR Misrepresentations --------------------------------------------------------- Universal Travel Group is facing a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the Company's public filings and press releases contained misrepresentations, according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On April 15, 2011, plaintiff Albert Snellink commenced a putative class action in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, against Universal Travel Group, and the Company's officers, Jiangping Jiang, Yizhao Zhang and Jing Xie. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges a claim for violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against all defendants, and a claim for a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants in connection with purported misrepresentations contained in the Company's public filings and press releases. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and his costs incurred in the action. The Company's time to answer or move with respect to the complaint has not yet expired. The Company believes that the allegations of complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. WESTAMERICA BANCORP: Unit Gets Prelim. OK of Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ A subsidiary of Westamerica Bancorporation received preliminary approval of a tentative mediated class-wide settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of deposit account customers, according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 22, 2011, Westamerica Bancorporation's subsidiary bank, Westamerica Bank, received preliminary approval from the Superior Court of California of a tentative mediated class-wide settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a punitive class of its deposit account customers. Westamerica Bank's lawsuit is similar to other lawsuits prevalent in the banking industry related to the assessment of overdraft fees. The lawsuit alleges that Westamerica Bank's manner of processing debit card transactions and other amounts drawn against deposit accounts results in customers paying more overdraft-related charges than they expect to pay. Westamerica Bank disputes its liability and the suitability of the claims for class treatment, but agreed to settle the punitive class action to end the expense and uncertainty created by the litigation. The tentative settlement would require Westamerica Bank to refund a portion of previously assessed overdraft fees to non-business customers. The tentative settlement is contingent on final court approval and is not expected to be effective earlier than the fourth quarter 2011. Westamerica Bank has concluded the settlement is likely and reasonably estimable at this juncture and intends to accrue for the estimated settlement in the second quarter 2011. The anticipated amount of Westamerica's settlement is proportionally similar to the amount of settlements reached for similar litigation experienced by other banks. WONDER AUTO: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. on July 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Wonder Auto Technology, Inc., during the period between May 14, 2008, and May 6, 2011, inclusive. On March 1, 2011, the Company disclosed that the previously issued financial statements for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, as well as its interim reports for those periods "should no longer be relied upon due to a cutoff error regarding timing of revenue in such periods." On March 25, 2011, the Company disclosed that it had "received a notification letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market indicating that the Company was not in compliance" with NASDAQ's continued listing requirements as it failed to timely file its annual report on a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. On May 6, 2011, after the close of trading, NASDAQ halted the trading of Wonder Auto stock until the Company satisfied NASDAQ's request for "additional information." Trading has not been resumed. On May 12, 2011, the Company disclosed in a press release, that its Audit Committee had "undertaken an internal investigation concerning certain investment and acquisition transactions." On May 20, 2011, the Company disclosed that the Audit Committee's investigation was commenced "in response to a report alleging that the Company had engaged in several transactions without properly disclosing their related-party nature." You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action at http://www.saxenawhite.com If you purchased the shares of Wonder Auto Technology, Inc. between May 14, 2008, and May 6, 2011, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests: If you purchased Wonder Auto Technology, Inc. during the Class Period, and/or on the Secondary Offering priced at $10.75 per share on November 12, 2009, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than August 1, 2011. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Greg Stone, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 E-mail: gstone@saxenawhite.com jwhite@saxenawhite.com Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com WALT DISNEY: Judge Certifies Blind Persons' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- On June 29, 2011, in the United States District Court Central District of California, Case No. CV 10-05810-DMG-FMO, Judge Dolly Gee certified a nationwide class of blind persons in a class action pending in Los Angeles. The blind plaintiffs in the case, represented by Andy Dogali of Forizs & Dogali, P.A. and Gene Feldman of Eugene Feldman, Attorney at Law, do not seek money damages, but only seek an injunction requiring Disney to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by making its theme parks and Web sites accessible to persons with visual impairments. Judge Gee certified five distinct classes who make the following allegations against Walt Disney Parks & Resorts: 1) Disney does not provide schedules, menus and maps in formats which are accessible to blind persons, such as in Braille, large print, or electronic form; 2) Disney does not accommodate the needs of guide dogs; 3) Disney does not accommodate the needs of blind persons during live parades and shows; 4) Disney does not permit any discounted admission for sighted companions who must accompany and support blind persons in the theme parks; and 5) Disney's Web sites do not accommodate blind persons who use screen reader programs to access information. Blind persons routinely use screen reader programs when surfing the internet. As the blind visitor tabs through or drags a cursor over elements of a webpage, screen reader programs read the content aloud. The plaintiffs allege that Disney's Web sites unlawfully include information which is visible to sighted users but not to screen reader programs, as well as options which are available to sighted persons but not to blind persons, such as the ability to renew passes, make reservations, and download electronic tickets. The three plaintiffs who have taken up this fight against Disney and who are now certified to represent blind persons across America are all women. Two reside in Southern California, the other in Wichita, Kansas. They are represented by class counsel Andy Dogali of Tampa, Florida and Gene Feldman of Los Angeles. Mr. Feldman, who operates a boutique disability law practice, said the ruling represents "an important victory for blind persons who otherwise enjoy the Disney experience but who seek simple fairness and equal treatment under the ADA". The case is now set for trial in January 2012. The 45-page certification order is available at: http://is.gd/mJxeXX More information for Mr. Dogali is available at: http://www.forizs-dogali.com and for Mr. Feldman at http://www.californiadisabilitylawfirm.com Mr. Dogali may be reached at (813) 289-0700 and Mr. Feldman at (310) 372-4636. YUHE INT'L: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action lawsuit on July 1 against Yuhe International, Inc. The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of common stock from December 31, 2009, through and including June 17, 2011, and purchasers in Yuhe's public offering, commencing on October 20, 2010. Berman DeValerio brought the complaint against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, its auditor and the underwriters of the October Offering in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is filed as Singh v. Yuhe International, Inc., et al.,11-cv-4526 (S.D.N.Y). Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff are required to file a motion for appointment with the court no later than August 23, 2011. The claims arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for purchasers in the October Offering; and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission for Class Period Purchasers. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Yuhe, a supplier of day-old chickens, and the other Defendants made material false statements concerning Yuhe's purported acquisition of 13 chicken farms as well as false statements concerning Yuhe's financial results. Between June 13, 2011, and June 17, 2011, a series of analysts and then Yuhe itself revealed that Yuhe did not acquire the chicken farms as it had stated. As a result of these disclosures, Yuhe's stock price dropped from $4.23 per share on June 10, 2011, to $1.21 per share on June 17, 2011, when the NASDAQ suspended trading in Yuhe stock after Yuhe's auditor, Child VanWagoner & Bradshaw, withdrew its audit report for the year ending December 31, 2010. To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than August 23, 2011, request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. In addition, you may contact the attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interests in the case. Please note: you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Berman DeValerio is a national law firm representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of securities and antitrust laws. The firm has 37 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Contact: Nathaniel Orenstein, Esq. Berman DeValerio Telephone: 800-516-9926 E-mail: norenstein@bermandevalerio.com ********* 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 * * *