/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110707.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 7, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 133 Headlines AMERICAN HOME: Settles Class Action Over Home Warranty Policies CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Parking Ticket Policy CATALYST INTERVENTIONS: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Practices CKE RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Employee Suits in Calif. DEUTSCHE BOERSE: Signs MOU to Settle Shareholder Litigation DISCOVER FINANCIAL: FDIC Probes Payment Protection Service GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Street View Class Action to Go Ahead HOLSTEN MANAGEMENT: Violates Chicago Tenant Ordinance, Suit Says JAMES HARDIE: Unit Faces Class Suit Filed by Homeowners KAPLAN INC: Judge Refuses to Sign Second Antitrust Settlement OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Appeals in IPO Suit Remanded ORECK CORP: Class Action Lawyers to Review Halo Vacuum Claims PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: In Negotiations to Settle "Niederklein" Suit PINNACLE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Illinois Collection Act RESURGENCE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlicensed Debt Collections SINGING MACHINE: Continues to Defend Bratz-Related Suits SINO-FOREST CORP: Litigator Questions Hasty Class Action Filings SONY ONLINE: Star Wars Galaxies Players Mull Class Action TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Settled Amiodarone Sale Suit in Early 2011 WALMART-STORES: Trial Lawyers to Continue Class Action Fight YUHE INTERNATIONAL: August 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears ********* AMERICAN HOME: Settles Class Action Over Home Warranty Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth R. Harney, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the settlement of a major class-action lawsuit is shedding new light on a controversial real estate practice that home buyers and sellers typically know little about: fees paid to real estate brokers and agents for promoting home warranty policies. The case involves potentially thousands of home buyers and sellers who purchased warranty coverage from American Home Shield between May 2008 and March of this year. American Home Shield is the dominant player in the home warranty field, with sales of $657 million in 2010, according to the company. Home warranty policies offer repairs and replacements for owners when specified home systems and appliances malfunction. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs say as many as 500,000 consumers may be members of the class, though neither they nor American Home Shield would speculate on how many ultimately will file for and receive cash from the settlement. In their suit, the plaintiffs alleged that American Home Shield violated federal law by paying kickbacks to real estate brokerage firms and agents for promoting warranty policies to their customers. The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act prohibits payments for referrals of "settlement services" in connection with most mortgage transactions. It also bans the giving or receiving of fees or other compensation when no substantive services are rendered. American Home Shield denied any wrongdoing in the settlement and said it sought to limit its exposure to litigation costs by resolving the dispute. The complaint, filed by homeowners in Alabama, involved payment of a $524 fee at closing for a one-year home warranty from American Home Shield. A portion of that amount allegedly was paid to the real estate agent by American Home Shield. Real estate professionals and consumer groups say payments such as these have been commonplace and controversial in the industry for years. Typical warranty policies cost anywhere from $400 to $500; fees to real estate brokers and agents range from $60 to $90. Warranty companies took in an estimated $1.5 billion in sales during 2009, according to Warranty Week. Some real estate companies refuse to participate in payment plans, while others defend the practice. Glenn Kelman, chief executive of Redfin, a national online brokerage, says if his firm finds that any agent "accepts gifts or payments from any party in the transaction, we fire the agent." Douglas R. Miller, executive director of Consumer Advocates in American Real Estate and former head of a title insurance agency in Minnesota, calls payments to real estate brokers and agents by home warranty companies "bribes," whether clients know about them or not. The 1.1 million-member National Association of Realtors has been outspoken on the issue, arguing that federal anti-kickback regulations should not cover warranties because they are not "settlement services" and have no effect on the closing of a real estate transaction. In a letter to the Department of Housing and Urban Development -- the chief regulator of the real estate settlement statute -- the association argued that brokers and agents provide a valuable service in alerting sellers and buyers to the existence of warranties. "Consumers are often not familiar with the numerous home warranty products," wrote Vicki Cox Golder, 2010 president of the association. "Real estate brokers and agents do not merely flash a brochure concerning these products to individual buyers and sellers." Instead, they "devote valuable time educating consumers about the features, limitations, coverage and pricing of home warranties." HUD has disagreed, however. In an interpretive rule issued last summer, HUD said that "a real estate broker or agent actively promoting [a home warranty company] and its products to sellers or prospective home buyers" for compensation is considered to be making a "referral" that violates federal law. If a case-by-case factual analysis demonstrates that agents provided substantive services beyond their normal duties, the department said, then the fees may not be in violation. Real estate professionals have said the ruling is unacceptably vague. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the American Home Shield settlement cited the HUD guidance extensively. Other class-action suits challenging home warranty payments to agents are at various stages in federal courts around the country, according to attorneys familiar with the issue. CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Parking Ticket Policy --------------------------------------------------------- Peggy Clifford, writing for Santa Monica Dispatch, reports that in a virtually unprecedented move, Santa Monica attorney Stanley Epstein spoke briefly to the City Council on June 28 before it went into closed session about item 1-C "Existing Litigation" brought by Mr. Epstein and his wife against the City and others for violating the California Vehicle Code laws regarding parking tickets. Mr. Epstein's tone was brisk; his message clear: he had tried since mid-February to resolve the case without resorting to litigation. He had met with City officials, sent countless letters and e-mails, but had been rebuffed at every turn, and left with no choice but filing a class action suit, which would cost the City a great deal of money in lawyers' fees. No action was taken on 1-C in the closed session. Parking tickets are one of the petty annoyances of modern life. Nobody likes them, but, after some grumbling and grousing, most people pay them, and get on with their lives. But when Mr. Epstein's wife, Harriet Epstein, was given a ticket for parking in a space reserved exclusively for Euclid Park visitors between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., she contested it, as she didn't believe she was in violation. Though she didn't know it at the time, that was the genesis of the lawsuit. Following California Vehicle Code (CVC), Section 40215, "Contesting Parking Violation Procedure," Mrs. Epstein wrote to the Parking Violations Bureau (PVB), stated the reasons that the citation was invalid and asked for its dismissal. Her letter reported that the officer had written "S.C.V." on the ticket, but did not state what it meant. Further, Mrs. Epstein parked at 2:00 p.m. and was issued the ticket at 2:05 p.m., but unless the officer followed her around for the next 55 minutes, which she didn't, she had no way of knowing whether Mrs. Epstein had spent time in the park. Her letter was reviewed by a Santa Monica Police Department Traffic Services Officer and sent on to the Parking Violations Bureau, a sub-contractor of ACS State and Local Solutions, a Xerox subsidiary that manages parking ticket paperwork and other administrative services for Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Culver City and West Hollywood and many other cities in this country and abroad. A few days later, Mrs. Epstein received a form letter (unsigned) from PVB that said simply, "the citation is valid," thus violating CVC 40215, which states that the "initial review notification" must "include a reason for the denial." Mrs. Epstein and her husband, Stanley, an attorney, went to the Santa Monica Police Department headquarters to report that the PVB reply neither complied with CVC requirements nor stated the bases for the denial of Ms. Epstein's claim. T hey were told by an SMPD lieutenant that the "denial notification was appropriate," though it gave no reason for the denial, but merely confirmed the citation's alleged validity. Still following the Vehicle Code rules, Mrs. Epstein paid the $64 fine and requested a hearing. "Parking citation hearing examiner services" are provided by ACS and overseen by a division of the City Finance Department. Hearing examiner Sheri Ross has a two-year contract with the City to adjudicate parking violation appeals. The Epsteins appeared before Ms. Ross, challenged the validity of the original citation, pointed out that the PVB notification failed to cite a reason for denying the complaint, as required by CVC 40215, and asked that the case be dismissed. Ms. Ross said she would review the statute, analyze the arguments and make her decision. Two days later, another unsigned notification form arrived from PVB. Like the previous notification, it simply said, "the citation is valid." CVC statute 40215 (6) requires the examiner to provide the basis for his/her decision to the appellant: "The examiner's decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the person by the examiner or sent by first-class mail, and, if the notice (citation) is not canceled, include a written reason for that denial." As unanswered questions and apparent violations of the California Vehicle Code accumulated, Stanley Epstein discussed them with both the Finance Department, which oversees the adjudication of citation appeals, and the City Attorney's office, which is responsible for reviewing all documents, including notification letters sent to parking citation appellants. He also talked with the regional director of operations for ACS/PVB who told him that the City was notified of changes in the California Vehicle Code that became effective on January 1, 2009, but the City did not authorize ACS/PVB to change the notification letters. Since the state's Vehicle Code requires that motorists who appeal parking citations be informed of the bases for the City's denial of such appeals, and Mrs. Epstein was twice told that the citation was valid, but was not told why it was valid, or given "a written reason for the denial," the City's parking citation appeals process was in violation of the state's Vehicle Code. The Epsteins called for a full and impartial review to ascertain whether the City and its contractors are and/or have violated state statutes since January 1, 2009, asked that any investigation include the hearing examiner, who is a licensed California attorney, to ascertain whether ticketed motorists' appeals followed the procedures prescribed by law, and further asked that all notices and procedures be brought into compliance with state statutes. If appellants were improperly noticed, their appeals denied without explanation, original citations upheld simply because they were "valid," and fines collected by the City, the Epsteins believed the tickets should be dismissed, and the fines and bail money, if any, refunded, as they were collected in violation of state statute. According to their estimates, the money the City has collected illegally could total hundreds of thousands of dollars. Don Patterson, the City's Finance Department official who oversees ACS/PVB, said in an e-mail to the Epsteins: "These concerns were reviewed with the City Attorney's Office, and our current administrative hearing processes and notices meet the minimum requirements of applicable state law . . . We have been in the process of reviewing and updating various parking-related notices over the past several months . . .." On May 9, Mr. Epstein e-mailed the members of the City Council: "Today's Bill Bauer column in the 'Daily Press' accurately details the actions by the city and ACS my wife and I encountered in contesting a parking citation. City staff will undoubtedly defend its procedures so that it can continue illegally to collect fines from the public. Based on what the City Attorney's office told Don Patterson, here's my analysis of why its opinion is totally wrong. "STATEMENT by attorney Stanley H. Epstein "The pathetic attempt by City lawyers (in an 'opinion' not one word of which has been provided to the public or media) is a bad faith effort to support their advice in 2008 which resulted in daily conduct by the City and its Processing Agency that violates California law and has cost motorists millions in fines that should not have been paid to Santa Monica. "1. Language of Law: Section 40215 of the state's Vehicle Code sets up a procedure for contesting parking citations. The motorist first communicates reason(s) why the citation should be dismissed. Under the amendments to the law effective 1/1/09, the City (through its Agent) must do one of two things: cancel the citation or if that's denied 'include a reason for that denial.' This is called the 'initial review.' The motorist then can appeal to an independent hearing examiner and following that hearing, the new provision again allows only the same two options, specifically requiring the notice to 'include a written reason for that denial.' The City chose to continue sending two (form) notices, neither of which contains the necessary reason for denial of dismissal. They simply say that the citation is not invalidated, which is a conclusion, not a reason. "2. Intent of Law: Lawyers and judges regularly seek to determine what was in the minds of legislators. Here that exercise is fatal to [City Attorney] Mr. Seltzer's position. The statute contemplates that City expenditures will be reduced by not requiring a City employee (such as the citing officer) to attend or testify before the examiner or on any appeal to the court. Therefore the City?s position has to be clear in its documented responses to both of those bodies. Consequently, the statute specifically mandates a reason for a denial so the examiner and the judge can carefully evaluate that reason in the case through the documents and testimony by the motorist. Simply saying 'the citation is valid,' as the City does twice, gives the trier of fact no information as to what the City is saying in response to the particular claims of the motorist in each individual case. Makes total sense. Furthermore, the motorist is assisted in deciding whether to appeal when the City provides a specific reason countering her statements. "In conclusion, the City Manager and Finance and Police Departments should have the courage now to discard the lawyers' unsubstantiated 'opinion' which seeks to cover up their original mistake in 2008 and prevent motorists from being reimbursed. To quote from VC Section 40215: "The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested parking violations." The City should guarantee no less." None of the Council members responded to Mr. Epstein's statement. The Epsteins both filed suit in Superior Court, as Mrs. Epstein received the Citation and Mr. Epstein owns the car. The suit asked that the City be required to abide by the state law and either respond to the Epsteins' request that it state the bases for the citation or dismiss it, and refund her $64 payment. But when the Epsteins' research showed that an estimated 16,000 motorists had apparently received the same alleged illegal treatment, they withdrew their suit, and filed a class action suit, and asked for "a writ of mandate," which would require the City abide by state law and settle with all the people who had been denied due process. On May 30, the City issued a press release headlined "City Continues Implementation of Parking System Improvements". The release said, "Santa Monica, California -- The City of Santa Monica's Finance and Police Departments have been working on a year-long effort to review and improve parking citation and permit systems. "Recent resident inquiry and press attention has focused on notices to people who contest their parking citations during the appeal process. As a result, the City has reviewed the level of information provided in letters that are sent to the recipient notifying them of the decision. Although the letters provide the minimum information required by law, the City believes that providing additional details with these letters would improve customer service. The notifications sent by the City during the parking citation appeal process now reflect this additional information. The final stage of the appeal process, which is to the Superior Court, is not affected by this change in procedure. Any person who recently appealed a parking citation to the City, and would like additional details regarding why a citation was upheld during the appeal process, can e-mail their request with the citation number to parking.office@smgov.net, and they will receive a response within 10 business days. "This is the latest in a series of customer service improvements that has occurred over the last year which includes revised parking permit renewals; the ability to renew parking permits online at www.smgov.net/parking; barcoding of permits to allow for efficient verification of permits in the field; and installation of credit-card enabled meters in the public lots along Main St. "Future planned improvements include continued review of letters and notices to make them more customer-friendly; installation of on-street credit card enabled parking meters; and providing the ability for residents to print one day guest parking permits for preferential parking areas." The Epsteins disagree with the City's assertion that the letters "provide the minimum information required by law," noting that "the ticket is valid," the City's only response to both of the Epsteins' requests for the bases of the citation, ignores both her request and the law. A class action complaint asking for a writ of mandate and declaratory relief was filed by attorney Eric Benink in Los Angeles Superior Court on June 6. It alleges, among other things, that "In an effort to maximize revenue and reduce costs, respondents' practice has been to provide form letters rather than provide individual explanations or reasons as required under law." As of the City Council meeting on June 28, the City has not responded. CATALYST INTERVENTIONS: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Williams, individually and on behalf of the classes defined herein and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Jennifer Williams v. Catalyst Interventions, LLC, and Law Offices of Brian S. Glass, P.C., Case No. 2011-CH-23539 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 01, 2011) alleges that Catalyst Interventions became regulated by the Illinois Collection Agency Act since January 1, 2008, but it did not obtain a license until May 22, 2008. Ms. Williams contends that between January 1, 2008, and May 22, 2008, Catalyst Interventions -- in violation of the ICAA -- collected debts from debtors in Illinois by instituting or prosecuting lawsuits against Illinois consumers, including herself. The Plaintiff is a resident of Kane County, Illinois. Catalyst Interventions, an Illinois limited liability company, is or was 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 Law Offices of Brian S. Glass, which was organized under Illinois law, collects consumer debts originally owed to others. The firm filed and prosecuted the action against the Plaintiff on behalf of Catalyst Interventions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, 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 CKE RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Employee Suits in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- CKE Restaurants, Inc., continues to defend itself from class action lawsuits relating to disputes over employee meal and rest breaks, and wage and hour laws in California, according to the Company's June 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 23, 2011. The Company is currently involved in legal disputes related to employment claims, real estate claims and other business disputes. As of May 23, 2011, the Company's accrued liability for litigation contingencies with a probable likelihood of loss was $2,652,000, with an expected range of losses from $2,652,000 to $10,347,000. With respect to employment matters, the Company's most significant legal disputes relate to employee meal and rest break disputes, and wage and hour disputes. Several potential class action lawsuits have been filed in the State of California, regarding such employment matters, each of which is seeking injunctive relief and monetary compensation on behalf of current and former employees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims in these lawsuits; however, the Company is presently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions. As of May 23, 2011, the Company estimated the contingent liability of those losses related to litigation claims that are not accrued, but that the Company believes are reasonably possible to result in an adverse outcome and for which a range of loss can be reasonably estimated, to be in the range of $2,690,000 to $13,295,000. In addition, the Company is involved in legal matters where the likelihood of loss has been judged to be reasonably possible, but for which a range of the potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. DEUTSCHE BOERSE: Signs MOU to Settle Shareholder Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ In respect of the description of the shareholder litigation contained in the Offer Document as well as the description of the treatment of Deutsche Boerse shares as components of the DAX and the STOXX indices contained in the Offer Document the following is published: Settlement of Shareholder Litigation Following the announcement of the business combination agreement between NYSE Euronext, Deutsche BoerseAG, Alpha Beta Netherlands Holding N.V., a public limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, and Pomme Merger Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco pursuant to which NYSE Euronext and Deutsche BoerseAG agreed to combine their respective businesses and become subsidiaries of Holdco on February 15, 2011, several complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery; the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York; and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, each challenging the proposed combination. The Delaware cases were subsequently consolidated under the caption In re NYSE Euronext Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 6220-VCS. The New York Court cases were coordinated, and a Master File was created, under the caption In re NYSE Euronext Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 773000/11. The actions were brought as putative class actions on behalf of shareholders of NYSE Euronext and variously name as defendants NYSE Euronext, its directors at the time of the announcement of the combination, Deutsche Boerse, Merger Sub and Holdco, and allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the combination and that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches. On May 26, 2011, plaintiffs in the actions filed a motion in the Delaware Court seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the scheduled July 7, 2011 NYSE Euronext shareholder vote on the combination. On June 16, 2011, the plaintiffs in the actions, the NYSE Euronext defendants, Deutsche Boerse and Holdco entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth their agreement in principal regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted in the actions. As part of the settlement, the NYSE Euronext defendants acknowledged that the pendency and prosecution of the actions were a factor in the NYSE Euronext board of directors' decision to support management's recommendation that Holdco declare a special dividend and consequently provide appraisal rights. Additionally, in the MOU, Holdco acknowledged its intent to recommend to the Holdco board of directors that following the completion of the combination Holdco act upon the recommendations of the boards of directors of NYSE Euronext and Deutsche Boerse that Holdco issue the special dividend subject to the approval of the Holdco board of directors, consistent with its fiduciary duties. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to seek to remove or withdraw any pending requests for interim relief, specifically including plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the Delaware action. The settlement is contingent upon, among other items, the execution of a formal stipulation of settlement, Delaware Court approval following notice to the class, final dismissal of the actions with prejudice, and the completion of the combination. If Holdco were to fail to pay the special dividend, for any reason, the parties would have the option to terminate the settlement. If the settlement is consummated, it would release all claims that the plaintiffs and all members of the class may have arising out of or relating in any manner to the combination, as described in the MOU, including the federal action pending in SDNY. Decision made on treatment of Deutsche Boerse shares as components of DAX and STOXX indices in context of planned merger with NYSE Euronext The Working Committee for Equity Indices decided to replace the Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE0005810055) with the tendered Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE000A1KRND6) with two trading days notice, provided an acceptance threshold of at least 50% is reached by the end of the initial acceptance period (i.e., on 13 July 2011) or at any time during the additional acceptance period. Once the 50% threshold is achieved the then larger share class is included in the DAX in accordance with the index rulebook. If the tendered Deutsche Boerse share is still an index member after closing or discontinuation of the transaction, the tendered Deutsche Boerse share will be replaced by the Alpha Beta Netherlands Holdings N.V. share (ISIN NL0009766997) or the Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE0005810055), respectively, provided that, in the case of the closing of the transaction, the Alpha Beta Netherlands Holdings N.V. share fulfills the criteria for inclusion in the DAX. Deutsche Boerse stated that it will follow the independent decision of the Working Committee for Equity Indices and will implement the adjustments as decided. The Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE0005810055) will be replaced in STOXX indices by the tendered Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE000A1KRND6) with two trading days notice, provided an acceptance threshold of at least 75% is reached by July 13, 2011 or at any time during the additional acceptance period. The new free float market capitalization will reflect the reached acceptance level. If the tendered Deutsche Boerse share is still an index member, after closing or discontinuation of the transaction, the tendered Deutsche Boerse share will be replaced by the Alpha Beta Netherlands Holdings N.V. share (ISIN NL0009766997) or the Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE0005810055), respectively, provided that, in the case of the closing of the transaction, the Alpha Beta Netherlands Holdings N.V. share fulfills the criteria for inclusion in the STOXX indices. With an increasing number of Deutsche Boerse shares being tendered until July 13, 2011, there is a strong probability that the liquidity of the untendered Deutsche Boerse shares (ISIN DE0005810055) will be significantly lower than the liquidity of the tendered Deutsche Boerse shares (ISIN DE000A1KRND6). DISCOVER FINANCIAL: FDIC Probes Payment Protection Service ---------------------------------------------------------- Philip van Doorn, writing for TheStreet, reports that Discover Financial Services disclosed that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "reviewing the Company's marketing practices with respect to its fee-based products, including its payment protection fee product, which could lead to an enforcement action." Discover reported the FDIC scrutiny and possible regulatory action in its first-quarter 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The filing added that Discover also has eight class action cases pending against it, also "in relation to the sale of the Company's payment protection fee product." The company's Payment Protection service allows a credit card customer to put loan payments "on hold for up to 2 years in the event of disability, hospitalization, or other qualifying events, depending on the product level," also offering death benefits to borrowers, depending on the state in which a borrower resides. The Payment Protection service also allows a borrower to put "payments on hold for 1 billing period for the following Celebration Events," including marriage, childbirth, retirement, graduation and other events. A disclosure page on the company's Web site, says that the fee for the service is a credit card borrower's "total balance at the end of each monthly billing period (including any partial monthly billing period at the beginning of your enrollment), multiplied by 89› per $100." Considering that on an annual basis, the fee would come to over 10.5%. Discover said in a statement that the company is "engaged in constructive dialogue with the FDIC as it reviews the marketing practices of our fee-based products." The New York Times reported in June of last year, that one of the class action lawsuits against Discover, accused the company of using deceptive business practices to market the Payment Protection service, quoting David S. Paris, of Paris Ackerman & Schmierer, the lead firm for a class action suit against Discover, as saying that some customers who had declined to sign up for the service when called by a Discover representative, had still been enrolled "unilaterally." On June 15, JPMorgan Chase was fined $2 million by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for "high pressure sales taxes" of a similar Credit-protection product. GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Street View Class Action to Go Ahead ------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Zebley, writing for Jurist, reports that a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30 rejected a motion by Google to dismiss class-action lawsuits under wiretapping laws. Judge James Ware denied Google's argument that when they collected information while creating their Street View feature, the information was freely and publicly available. Google collected private details transmitted on unencrypted wireless connections, but the company claims it was inadvertent. Judge Ware did dismiss state claims, but allowed federal claims to go forward. Judge Ware approved a settlement agreement in a privacy lawsuit against Google over its Buzz social networking application earlier this month, awarding damages to privacy groups previously left out of the original proposed settlement. In March, the Federal Trade Commission settled a similar privacy lawsuit against Google over charges that the Internet giant breached consumer privacy rights and was misleading during the launch of Buzz. The FTC alleges that when Google launched Buzz through its web-based e-mail, Gmail, users were automatically enrolled without their consent and were unable to decline or leave the social network and that the Buzz privacy controls were confusing. Google has recently faced a number of allegations of violating privacy laws, both in the US and abroad. In November, the Federal Communications Commission confirmed that it is investigating Google to determine if it violated communications laws when its Street View vehicles inadvertently collected private user data, including passwords and URLs, over WiFi networks. In October, the FTC ended an inquiry into the company's data collection through Street View cars after Google assured the FTC that it did not use any of the collected data and announced that it was committed to compliance with privacy laws, instituting new training on privacy principles and appointing a new director of privacy. HOLSTEN MANAGEMENT: Violates Chicago Tenant Ordinance, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verna Harper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Holsten Management Corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-23408 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 30, 2011) is brought to secure redress against Holsten for violations of the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. The Plaintiff alleges that Holsten failed to (a) pay interest on Plaintiff's and the class' security deposits, and (b) provide tenants with City-mandated interest rate summaries and porch safety disclosures. Ms. Harper is a resident of Chicago, Illinois, and was a tenant of Holsten. Holsten, an Illinois limited liability company, leases and manages residential apartments in Chicago. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Sobek, Esq. Kristen Parks, Esq. JS Law 22 W Washington Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 756-1330 JAMES HARDIE: Unit Faces Class Suit Filed by Homeowners ------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of James Hardie Industries SE is facing a lawsuit relating to product allegedly manufactured by the subsidiary, according to the Company's June 29, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. On March 30, 2011, one of the Company's U.S. subsidiaries was named as a defendant in a lawsuit pending in federal district court relating to product allegedly manufactured by the subsidiary. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an individual homeowner. The individual plaintiff seeks to bring the lawsuit on behalf of a purported but unidentified class of homeowners. Based on available information and circumstances presently known, the Company believes that the outcome of the proceedings with respect to the individual plaintiff will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, although the outcome of the individual plaintiff's request for class action status is uncertain, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the lawsuit, and the subsidiary intends to vigorously defend the action. KAPLAN INC: Judge Refuses to Sign Second Antitrust Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal judge refused to sign off on a second settlement in the BAR/BRI antitrust litigation after objectors raised concerns that Kaplan Inc.'s portion of the deal involved coupons. The deal would have settled claims by class members alleging that Kaplan and West Publishing Corp. conspired to monopolize the market for bar review courses. West Publishing owns BAR/BRI and Kaplan sells preparatory courses for the Law School Admission Test. Under the settlement, West would have paid $5.29 million in cash and Kaplan would have provided coupons worth $150 each toward the purchase of future course materials. U.S. District Judge Manuel Real in Los Angeles had preliminarily approved the deal on March 21. But during a final settlement hearing on June 20, Judge Real expressed concern about the coupons, which would provide discounts on future Kaplan courses, according to lawyers who attended the hearing. He also cited qualms about the value of the settlement, which included about $1.7 million in attorney fees, the lawyers said. "He took great issue with the coupon aspect of it, the discount certificates," said George Richard Baker of Baker Law in Birmingham, Ala. Mr. Baker attended the hearing on behalf of six class members who referred to themselves in court papers as the "Alabama Objectors." Mr. Baker's clients objected to the settlement based in part on the coupons. On June 24, Judge Real issued a written ruling rejecting the settlement. He also referred the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had been hearing the case before the settlement was reached. Alan Harris, a partner at Harris & Ruble in Los Angeles -- law@harrisandruble.com -- who is co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, declined to comment. "The parties are conferring with our clients as to the next step," he said. John Shaughnessy, a spokesman for West's parent corporation, Thomson Reuters Corp., said in a prepared statement: "We are disappointed that Judge Real's position on the settlement has changed. That said, we hope to continue working with all parties to bring this matter to closure." Kaplan spokeswoman, Carina Wong, declined to comment. In court papers, both companies defended the settlement, noting that all of the major law firms in the country had submitted claim forms and that the case, had it gone forward, would have faced an uphill battle. In an earlier case, Kaplan and West agreed to pay $49 million to resolve claims on behalf of a class of about 300,000 test-takers who said they paid on average $1,000 in overcharges for the bar review course. In that case, the companies agreed to disband a marketing agreement under which Kaplan had agreed not to enter the bar review market. Roadblocks That deal, too, hit roadblocks after winning Judge Real's preliminary approval -- in part, because objectors raised concerns about the amount of the incentive awards being paid to five named plaintiffs. Judge Real rejected the awards but approved the settlement, giving McGuireWoods, the lead plaintiffs' firm, $12 million in attorney fees. In the end, Judge Real granted $500,000 in fees to the firm. The second agreement would have resolved claims by class members who purchased bar review course materials from Aug. 1, 2006, to the present. The previous settlement, reached in 2007, resolved claims on behalf of students who purchased the course materials between 1997 and 2006. In a motion for final approval, Mr. Harris said that class members would have received an average of $240, including $90 in cash from West and Kaplan coupons worth about $150 each. Plaintiffs' lawyers would have received more than $1.3 million in fees, or 25% of the $5.28 million payment from West, plus more than $400,000 for the Kaplan part of the deal. Class representatives would have received $4,000 each as incentive awards. Mr. Harris estimated that the face value of the coupons totaled about $37 million. In court papers, several objectors disputed the coupon portion of the deal, calling the certificates "beyond the pale of reasonable fairness," "valueless" and "particularly laughable." "Thanks, but no thanks," wrote Daniel George of Beverly Hills, Calif. "For many, Kaplan's 'coupons' are worth less than a confederate dollar." Mr. Baker wrote that the asking price of a Kaplan coupon on eBay was $20 to $100, but most had attracted no bids. The highest bid had been $1.25, he said -- a "far cry" from the estimated $150 value put forth in the settlement. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Appeals in IPO Suit Remanded --------------------------------------------------------------- An appellate court remanded to the district court for further determinations remaining appeals from the approval of a global settlement of cases coordinated under the title In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, according to OmniVision Technologies, Inc.'s June 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2011. On November 29, 2001, a complaint captioned McKee v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 01 CV 10775, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, some of its directors and officers, and various underwriters for its initial public offering. Plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws because the prospectus related to the Company's offering failed to disclose, and contained false and misleading statements regarding, certain commissions purported to have been received by the underwriters, and other purported underwriter practices in connection with their allocation of shares in the Company's offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 14, 2000, and December 6, 2000. Substantially similar actions have been filed concerning the initial public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and the cases have been coordinated as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims against the Company except for a claim brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated litigation. Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and it will bear no financial liability. The Company and the other defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case. In 2009, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. Certain objectors filed appeals. A number of those appeals were dismissed. In May 2011, the appellate court issued an order remanding the remaining appeals to the district court for further determinations. If for any reason the settlement does not become effective, and litigation against the Company proceeds, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the action vigorously. ORECK CORP: Class Action Lawyers to Review Halo Vacuum Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- If you purchased an Oreck Halo Vacuum or ProShield Plus air cleaner, you may be able to participate in a Class Action against Oreck seeking recovery of the costs of these products, which retailed for $599.95 and $399.95, respectively. To learn more visit: http://www.forthepeople.com/oreck-halo-class-action--11-3109.html Oreck recently reached a settlement agreement with the Federal Trade Commission as a result of the FTC's allegations that Oreck made false and deceptive claims concerning the health benefits of these products. As part of this settlement, Oreck agreed to pay a fine to the FTC as a consequence of Oreck's allegedly false and unproven claims that these products substantially reduce the risk of or prevent the flu and other illnesses or ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, molds, and allergens, such as the common cold, diarrhea, upset stomachs, asthma, and allergy symptoms; that the ProShield Plus eliminates airborne particles or other common germs and allergens found in users' homes; and, that the Oreck Halo vacuum is effective against germs, bacteria, dust mites, mold and viruses embedded in carpets. The FTC found that these claims were false and misleading because Oreck did not possess or rely upon a reasonable basis or scientific evidence to support many of these representations. Consumers who bought an Oreck ProShield Plus air cleaner or Halo vacuum may be able to participate in a class action in light of these allegations. The attorneys at Morgan and Morgan would like to hear from consumers who bought either the Oreck Halo Vacuum or ProShield Plus air cleaner. Visit ForThePeople.com and complete the free case review form to find out if you may be able to participate in an Oreck class action to seek compensation for the cost of your Oreck Halo vacuum or ProShield Plus air cleaner. About Morgan and Morgan Morgan and Morgan -- http://www.forthepeople.com/-- is one of the largest personal injury law firms in the country with multiple office locations throughout Florida and the Southeast. The firm handles auto accident cases, personal injury cases, and medical malpractice cases, as well as claims against drug and medical device manufacturers. Contact: Michael Goetz, Esq. Morgan & Morgan Telephone: 877-667-4265 PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: In Negotiations to Settle "Niederklein" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CS Edventures!.com, Inc., is currently engaged in negotiations to settle a class action lawsuit captioned Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., according to the Company's June 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. The Company, along with its current chief executive officer, and former chief financial officer has been named in a class action lawsuit --(Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Case 1:10-cv-00479-CWD). The class action was brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period between March 28, 2007, and August 15, 2007. On February 24, 2011, the Court granted the motion of Moustafa Salem to serve as the lead plaintiff. On June 8, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the former CFO without prejudice from the lawsuit, which the Court has granted. On June 10, 2011, the Company participated in a Court-ordered settlement conference and is engaged in ongoing negotiations. PINNACLE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Illinois Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Diane M. Foley and Dennis W. Wehr, individually and on behalf of the class defined herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Diane M. Foley and Dennis W. Wehr v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-23481 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 01, 2011) alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois Collection Agency Act by collecting debts in Illinois without first obtaining a license. The Plaintiffs are residents of Cook County, Illinois. Pinnacle Credit, a limited liability company organized under Minnesota law, does business in Illinois by purchasing or claiming to purchase charged-off consumer debts and enforcing the debts against the consumers by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Thomas E. Soule, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, 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 RESURGENCE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlicensed Debt Collections ----------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Barker, individually and on behalf of the class defined herein, and the People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Tammy Barker v. Resurgence Financial, LLC (Case No. 2011-CH-23480 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 01, 2011) is brought in connection with the Defendant's collection of debts from debtors in Illinois before obtaining a license -- in violation of the Illinois Collection Agency Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of Illinois. Resurgence Financial, an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business in Cook County, 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 & GOODWIN, 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 SINGING MACHINE: Continues to Defend Bratz-Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------- The Singing Machine Company, Inc., doing business as SMC Global, continues to defend itself from lawsuits relating to "Bratz" disputes with MGA Entertainment, Inc., according to the Company's June 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. MGA Entertainment, Inc. filed an action against the Company on April 16, 2010, captioned MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. The Singing Machine Company, Inc. (Central District Court Of California, Case Cv 10-03761 Doc (RNBX)), alleging breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion claims relating to two licensing agreements between the parties entered into on May 10, 2006, and November 21, 2006. The two licensing agreements involved the manufacture, distribution and marketing of "Bratz" branded merchandise. The Company has responded to the case and has removed the case to federal court, case no. CV 10-03761 DOC (RNBX). Based upon legal opinion from outside Counsel, the Company believes it has defenses to the claims raised by MGA. At the time of this filing, the case is still in early stages of discovery and the outcome is unknown. The Company has also filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of itself and all similarly situated licensees against MGA in the Central District Court of California, case no. CV 10-4536- DOC(RNBX). The Company alleges breach of contract, failure of consideration for the licensing agreements, and other claims based on various state and federal laws. Due to the multiple lawsuits involved back and forth between the Company and MGA, at this time, the Company cannot provide a reasonable estimate of contingent liability. Prior to the Company entering into the License Agreements with MGA, Mattel, a competitor to MGA, filed a complaint against MGA on or about April, 2005 alleging ownership to the "Bratz" concept. The Mattel/MGA Litigation was tried in phases and, on July 17, 2008, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Mattel and against MGA concerning ownership of the Bratz concept. The Jury determined that MGA did not and never did own any right, title or interest in or to the "Bratz" identity including the brand, sculptures, likenesses, trademarks etc. The cases were retried in January and February 2011 and the jury found in favor of MGA in both matters. Notwithstanding the jury verdict, the case is still pending and Mattel is expected to appeal. Based on advice from Counsel, the Company is of the opinion the Mattel/MGA Litigation will not materially affect the outcome of the MGA/Singing Machine Litigation. The Company's class-action lawsuit is based on the belief that the Licensing Agreements with MGA were entered into through an intentional or negligent concealment of a known material fact on the part of MGA -- namely the pending lawsuit by Mattel challenging MGA's ownership of the Bratz designs that were the very subject of the License Agreements. The Company has not accrued any additional liability beyond the initial $85,000 originally recorded for this vendor. SINO-FOREST CORP: Litigator Questions Hasty Class Action Filings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julius Melnitzer, writing for Law Times, reports that a significant carriage fight is shaping up among plaintiffs' firms in class action suits against beleaguered Sino-Forest Corp., a TSX-listed issuer and commercial forestry operator in China. From the bar's perspective, the preliminary jockeying among plaintiffs' firms raises some interesting questions about the conduct of class proceedings in Ontario. At least one veteran litigator who acts for plaintiffs isn't impressed. "I think the hasty filings were completely irresponsible," said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "If we're going to have mature, credible class actions against Sino-Forest, we need responsible behavior on all sides, and that includes the analysts and the class action bar. Filing on the basis of a report riddled with misinformation doesn't meet that standard." On June 8, just six days after short-seller Muddy Waters accused Sino-Forest of fraud, and after the company's stock dropped by more than 70%, Joel Rochon of Toronto's Rochon Genova LLP filed a proposed class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lawsuit, which also names several of Canada's major underwriters, relies almost exclusively on the allegations by Muddy Waters, a research company that's certainly not mainstream and even lacks a physical address. Siskinds LLP of London, Ontario, followed with a lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court on June 9. For the most part, the Siskinds case also relies on the Muddy Waters allegations. Quebec is a first-to-file jurisdiction, so the plaintiffs' firm that files first in that province is the one likely to get carriage and the biggest slice of the fee pie from proceedings against Sino-Forest. On June 15, Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds told Law Times his firm and co-counsel Kirk Baert, of Toronto's Koskie Minsky LLP, would file a similar action on behalf of an institutional investor "within the next week." The Ontario lawsuit was filed June 20. Perhaps because the firm lacked the green light from institutional investors, Siskinds didn't file in Ontario at the outset. That might explain the rush to file in Quebec once Rochon Genova had pre-empted Siskinds in Ontario. What makes the argument more compelling is that Quebec doesn't have laws that impose secondary market liability in the same way that Ontario does, meaning the case will be harder to prove in the neighboring province. Toronto's Kim Orr law firm is investigating a separate claim on behalf of other institutional investors. The upshot is that each of Ontario's major securities class action plaintiffs' firms is hot on the heels of the Sino-Forest fallout. There's no suggestion that there's anything wrong with that. But critics say the rush to file doesn't always reflect well on the civil justice system. Consider, for example, that at least some of the Muddy Waters allegations that form the heart of the pleadings filed to date were quickly shown to have been inaccurate, with views contrary to those of the Bay Street analyst community. It's the type of scenario that has given rise to skepticism about securities class actions in the United States. That's not to say that experienced Canadian plaintiffs' counsel, widely regarded as far more cautious than their American counterparts, need to wait around until the true facts emerge. The point is that lawsuits filed on what appear to be dubious facts from a source that has a conflict of interest are bound to raise a few eyebrows. Mr. Rochon says the Muddy Waters report is powerful. "What we have is a very serious problem that is evidenced by the massive drop in market value," he says. "It's important for investors to know that someone is doing something about it and not just relying on the results of a regulator's investigation that won't be available for some time." Mr. Lascaris focuses on the need for proper representation for investors, at least implicitly acknowledging the possibility of a looming carriage fight down the road. "It's important to have the case prosecuted by firms that have experience in this area," he says. "The problem with the first- to-file approach is that it allows lawyers with limited experience to take advantage of the rule." Mr. Lascaris said his firm isn't relying only on the Muddy Waters report. "We don't simply rely on what anyone says and certainly not a short-seller," he says. "We're doing our own investigation, and that involves considerably more than just listening to the debate about what makes sense and who's right here." Mr. Lascaris says his firm "may not necessarily agree with everything" said by Muddy Waters. "The pleadings will evolve as the facts emerge," he says. Mr. Rochon says it's too early to make predictions about whether and to what extent a carriage fight is imminent. "We all have mutual respect, and I hope that we can see through our personal needs and find a constructive way to work together." SONY ONLINE: Star Wars Galaxies Players Mull Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Lynley, writing for VentureBeat, reports that the reaction from Sony Online Entertainment's Star Wars Galaxies online game community regarding the game's closure come December 15 has officially gone from woefully nostalgic to comically outlandish. A number of Star Wars Galaxies players have written to VentureBeat and said they want to file a lawsuit against Sony Online Entertainment. But there's zero chance that will happen. There are no grounds for a lawsuit against Sony, regardless of the circumstance, because all users signed an end-user license agreement when they signed up for the game. More than 2,500 Star Wars Galaxies players have signed a petition asking Sony Online Entertainment to convert the game to a free-to- play game maintained through the sale of virtual goods. The petition also asks Sony to consolidate players onto a smaller number of servers and facilitate character transfer to reduce operational costs in order to keep the game running. But there is no guarantee that Star Wars Galaxies will be profitable -- or even sustainable -- if it shifts to a freemium model. Other online games have success converting from a subscription- based model to a free-to-play model. Revenue from Turbine's Lord of the Rings Online doubled and its player base increased by 400% in the month after it went free to play. Revenue for the company's first experiment in going free-to-play, Dungeons and Dragons Online, jumped by about 500% after the shift. The companies don't disclose subscriber information for their games. But those games both had subscriber counts that were, upon visual inspection, orders of magnitude higher than the current subscription count for Star Wars Galaxies. Both games are also much newer than Star Wars Galaxies, which is already nearly a decade old. There was a massive difference in the number of players between the desolate streets of Coruscant, one time Star Wars Galaxies' largest trade city, and the bustling cities in Lord of the Rings Online before the game converted to a freemium model. Star Wars Galaxies fans were also up in arms when Sony Online Entertainment began locking threads that advertised the petition and protested the game being shut down. Sony Online Entertainment is able to terminate accounts that violate any provision of the EULA. That means that any player who violates any of the player rules of conduct located at the game's Web site or The Station is fair game to be struck with a ban hammer. Any player who engages in gameplay, chat or any player activity whatsoever that the company determines is inappropriate and/or in violation of the spirit of the game can also be banned -- including protesting the game shutdown. Yes, Star Wars Galaxies' imminent doom is tragic. In its prime, it was very different from other online games on the market, according to VentureBeat's Mr. Lynley. Sony Online Entertainment watered it down to make it similar to World of Warcraft so it would appeal to a more mainstream audience, and that killed the game's unique qualities and its subscriber base. "There's a reason that we did this -- the game was losing subscribers," Sony Online Entertainment president John Smedley said in 2009 regarding the updates. "We had to make this game more accessible to a wider audience or eventually we would not have a business." But ultimately, it was a failed experiment and left the game with a much smaller -- though much more fiercely loyal -- community. That community does not have to die with Star Wars Galaxies. It doesn't have to move on to Electronic Arts' next online Star Wars game, The Old Republic, either. Yet, it seems to think those are the only options, according to the players who have written to VentureBeat. TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Settled Amiodarone Sale Suit in Early 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------- Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. resolved in early 2011 a lawsuit related to the sale of amiodarone, according to the Company's June 29, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010. On November 10, 2004, the Company was sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Atlantic County along with other defendants in a purported class action lawsuit for alleged personal injuries related to defendants' sale of amiodarone. On June 9, 2010, the class action case was dismissed with prejudice, with a window of 150 days for individual claimants to file lawsuits. Only one suit was commenced against the Company. In early 2011, an agreement to resolve this matter was reached, which will have no material impact on the Company's financial position. WALMART-STORES: Trial Lawyers to Continue Class Action Fight ------------------------------------------------------------ Diana Furchtgott-Roth, writing for San Francisco Examiner, reports that trial lawyers will continue to fight against Walmart. Walmart is America's largest private employer. On June 20, the Supreme Court threw out the class-action lawsuit alleging sex discrimination filed by three current and former employees supposedly on behalf of all 1.5 million current and former female Walmart employees. The court ruled that the 1.5 million women and the 3,400 Walmart stores -- all in the United States -- had too little in common to allow a class-action lawsuit to proceed. The court said that there was no proof that Walmart, which has a stated nondiscrimination policy, had a general policy of systemic discrimination. The Walmart stores had too little in common for a class-action suit. Individual managers made their own decisions as to promotion, and plaintiffs had not proved that a culture of discrimination existed at the company. But fees of plaintiffs' lawyers typically are a percentage of the damages awarded, and so the larger the class, the larger the attorneys' fees. Joseph Sellers, one of the lawyers representing women in the case, promised to continue the fight by bringing more class-action lawsuits at the store or regional level. He told The New York Times that "this case will be splintered into many cases that may take longer and be harder to resolve." Walmart has been a target of trial lawyers because its employees are not unionized. Hence, the campaign to prove Walmart treats women unfairly. Millions of dollars spent on litigation are millions that Walmart cannot spend expanding stores and hiring. And with an unemployment rate of 9.1%, more hiring is needed. Texas, which reformed its state civil justice system in 2003 and just passed a "loser pays" law to discourage frivolous lawsuits, has created 37% of all net new jobs in America since the so-called recovery began in June 2009. The court decision doesn't mean that large companies can discriminate against women. It does mean that individual women, or groups of women under one supervisor, store or region, have to prove each case on its merits. Two of the three Walmart employees who brought the class-action suit are unlikely to have won individual sex-discrimination suits. Betty Dukes, the lead plaintiff, who worked in a Pittsburgh Walmart, had been promoted to manager, but then demoted to cashier and greeter after admitted disciplinary violations. Edith Arana, who worked in Duarte from 1995 to 2001, was dismissed for violating Walmart's timekeeping policy. She was told to apply to her district manager when she complained that her store manager was being unfair, but she never pursued the complaint. Presumably Walmart would not have promoted men under the same circumstances. The plaintiffs submitted data showing that men were managers in far greater proportion than their representation among employees, and had higher average salaries. But these averages might not account for differences in jobs, education, time in the workforce or hours worked. The Labor Department reports that about 27% of women worked part-time in 2010, compared to 13% of men. Full-time female employees work fewer hours than full-time male employees. These considerations explain some of the male-female differences between average pay and numbers supervisors at some Walmart stores. If more women work part-time, they may not be eligible to be promoted to manager, nor may they want to assume the responsibilities of a full-time position. Women should be treated on a case-by-case basis, the same as men, despite large fees collected by trial lawyers from class-action suits. YUHE INTERNATIONAL: August 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears ----------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is representing Yuhe International, Inc. shareholders in a securities class action lawsuit. If you purchased the stock of Yuhe International, Inc. during the period from December 31, 2009, through June 23, 2011, you may participate in the class action as a lead plaintiff and seek to recover investment losses. The deadline for lead plaintiff applications is August 23, 2011. To join the Yuhe class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., or Laurence Rosen, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@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 Southern District of Florida. 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 asserts violations of the federal securities laws against Yuhe and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the financial and business condition of the Company. The Complaint alleges that (a) Yuhe's financial results as reported to the SEC for the fiscal years ended 2009 and 2010 were materially false and misleading; (b) Yuhe lied to investors about its purported acquisition of 13 breeder farms from Weifangshi Dajiang Qiye Group Co. Ltd.; and (c) Yuhe's business was not growing at the rate represented by defendants. The Complaint alleges that on or about June 16, 2011, information from an analyst entered the market, quoting Dajiang's chairman, that Yuhe did not acquire Dajiang's farms, as Yuhe had represented in its SEC filings and other public statements. This announcement shocked the market and Yuhe's stock lost more than half of its value. On June 17, 2011, trading in the Company's stock was halted. On June 23, 2011, the Company announced its auditor had resigned because of Yuhe "management's misrepresentation and failure to disclose material facts surrounding certain acquisition transactions and off balance sheet related party transactions." Moreover, the auditor stated that its audited financial statements of Yuhe International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010, should no longer be relied upon and that the auditor no longer will be associated with the financial statements. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 23, 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 Phillip Kim, Esq., of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, 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 pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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 * * *