/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110727.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 27, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 147 Headlines ALCOA INC: Bid for Clarification of ERISA Suit Dismissal Pending BRIDGEVIEW BANK: Accused of Deceiving Customers in Illinois CHINA MEDICINE: Sept. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Employees' Suit Still Pending CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend ADA-Related Suits CVS PHARMACIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations GIBSON GUITAR: Sued Over Unpaid "Off the Clock" Work GOLDMAN SACHS: Disputes Sex Discrimination Class Action GROUPON INC: Faces Class Action Over Coupon Expiration Dates HALLIBURTON CO: Continues to Defend Claims Over Macondo Incident ILLINOIS: Transgender Plaintiffs Get Favorable Ruling JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Class Action LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Misleading Shareholders OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Aug. 3 Settlement Opt Out Deadline Set POPULAR INC: November 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set POWERCOR: Black Saturday Class Action Mediation Begins ROSS STORES: Recalls 1,200 Acacia Chairs Due to Fall Hazard THOMAS JEFFERSON: Files Response to Class Action TICKET RESERVE: Settles Super Bowl Ticket Fraud Class Action VARIAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims YONGYE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action * Finra Proposal May Trigger Broker Class Actions ********* ALCOA INC: Bid for Clarification of ERISA Suit Dismissal Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' motion for clarification of a court order dismissing their class action lawsuit against Alcoa Inc. is pending, according to the Company's July 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependants of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys' fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of September 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009, and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to September 22, 2009. In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009, and ending on October 1, 2009, in federal court in Knoxville, TN, before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same. Post trial briefing was submitted on December 4, 2009. On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things, a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to 2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs must pay. Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses. Alcoa filed its opposition to both motions on April 11, 2011. The time for plaintiffs to appeal from the court's March 9, 2011 judgment will not begin until the court disposes of these motions. BRIDGEVIEW BANK: Accused of Deceiving Customers in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles T. Mudd, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Bridgeview Bank Group, Case No. 2011-CH-25603 (Ill. Cir. Ct, Cook Cty., July 21, 2011) was filed in connection with a judgment by confession entered in favor of Bridgeview and against Mr. Mudd for $510,993. Mr. Mudd argues that the Judgment against him is a nullity and should be vacated because the attorney, who confessed judgment against him without process, did not have the authority to do so. He also alleges that Bridgeview's conduct in obtaining a judgment by confession against him was deceptive in that the power to confess judgment was invalid, and hence, Bridgeview received a judgment to which it was not entitled. Mr. Mudd is a resident of Illinois. Bridgeview is a bank and has an office in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold H. Landis, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD H. LANDIS 77 W. Washington, Ste. 702 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-6268 CHINA MEDICINE: Sept. 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on July 22 disclosed that all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of China Medicine Corporation between November 30, 2006, and March 23, 2011, inclusive have until September 16, 2011, to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. China Medicine, through its subsidiaries, distributes pharmaceutical and medical products in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about the Company's business and financial performance. On March 23, 2011, China Medicine filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announcing that the Company's board of directors had concluded that China Medicine's financial statements for its 2008 and 2009 fiscal years and quarterly reports during fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were unreliable. On the next trading day, as a result of the foregoing news, the price of China Medicine stock dropped more than 53% from its closing price of $1.16 per share on March 23, 2011 to a close of $0.54 per share on March 24, 2011. If you are a member of the class, you may move the Court, no later than September 16, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll Free: (888) 773-9224 E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Employees' Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a court denial of class certification in a lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., remains pending in California, according to the Company's July 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. A lawsuit has been filed against the Company in California alleging violations of state laws regarding employee record- keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and related practices with respect to its employees. The case originally sought damages, penalties and attorney's fees on behalf of a purported class of the Company's present and former employees. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify the purported class, and as a result the action can proceed, if at all, as an action by a single plaintiff. The plaintiff has appealed the court's denial of class certification, and the appeal remains pending. Although the Company has various defenses, the Company says it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this case. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend ADA-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., continues to defend class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the Company's July 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line wall in the Company's restaurants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws. On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit in the same court making the same allegations on a class action basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2008. In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and minimal damages to the plaintiff which the Company has accrued. The Company and the plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on July 26, 2010, the appeals court entered a ruling finding that the Company violated the ADA and did not provide the plaintiff with an equivalent facilitation, and remanded the case to the district court. The district court will now determine the damages and injunctive relief and final award of attorneys fees to which Mr. Antoninetti is entitled based on the court of appeals ruling. The Company lowered the height of its serving line walls throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief in both the individual and class actions moot, and has the lower serving lines in a significant majority of its restaurants outside of California as well. The Company says it will vigorously defend the class action cases, including by contesting certification of a plaintiff class. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any additional potential liability from, these cases. CVS PHARMACIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that a 2008 class action filed over the effectiveness of a generic immune system supplement sold by CVS Pharmacies Inc. has settled and is one step closer to being over. Iean Finley and fellow lead plaintiffs Richard Harvey and Linda Feibel filed the motion for initial approval of the settlement July 12. St. Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto entered his order giving it preliminary approval July 18. Mr. Finley led the suit on behalf of Illinois residents who bought CVS's version of the popular immune system supplement Airborne. Mr. Finely alleges he and class members were sold a supplement that did not boost the immune system as claimed. The Finley case is one of several immune supplement class actions filed in St. Clair County in 2008. The suits were filed by the team of lawyers -- Paul Weiss, Richard Burke, and Kevin Hoerner. At least one other immune supplement class action has settled while another, brought against Target Corp., remains pending. Judge Cueto certified the Finley suit in January 2010. The parties spent much of the remainder of 2010 arguing over class notice. Under the proposed settlement, the class consists of those who bought CVS's "Airshield" between July 1, 2005, and Nov. 30, 2008. Epiq Systems/Garden City will carry out notice of the settlement and administer the settlement. The Harvey action was filed first in August 2008. The Harvey action was filed under California unfair competition and consumer fraud laws. Mr. Finley filed his suit in December of that year. Ms. Feibel and other lead plaintiffs filed their suit in December 2009 in Rhode Island. Another similar action was certified against CVS in Massachusetts in March of this year. The parties in the suits went to mediation in April with the current settlement at hand ending all of the claims. Class members will receive $5.99 as a refunded, in-store voucher. Messrs. Finley, Harvey, and Ms. Feibel will receive $7,500 each as class representatives in the suits. The plaintiffs' legal team will take home $950,000 in fees and costs. CVS does not admit any liability or fault under the settlement. Judge Cueto will hear arguments for final approval of the settlement Oct. 20 at 10 a.m. Requests for exclusion from the settlement must be filed by class members by Sept. 16. Robert Bassett and others represent CVS. The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-616. GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action accuses General Nutrition Corp. of making employees work off the clock, and other Labor Law violations. A copy of the Complaint in Brewer v. General Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 11-cv-03587 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/22/Employ.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hoffman, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 362-1111 E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com GIBSON GUITAR: Sued Over Unpaid "Off the Clock" Work ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Gibson Guitar Corp. makes employees work off the clock. A copy of the Complaint in Roberts v. Gibson Guitar Corp., Case No. 11-cv-00697 (M.D. Tenn.) (Trauger, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/22/Gibson.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton H. Scott, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC 101 North Highland Avenue Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone: 731-664-1340 E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com - and - Michael L. Russell, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC 1616 Westgate Circle, Suite 228 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: 615-435-1144 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Disputes Sex Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Moira Herbst, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said a recent landmark decision throwing out a class- action lawsuit against Wal-Mart means it should not face a wide- ranging case accusing it of systematic bias against women. The investment bank in court papers said the three women who sued it last year have highly individual claims that cannot be readily applied to a wider class of plaintiffs. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court said a gender bias case against Wal-Mart on behalf of a group believed to exceed 1.5 million workers could not proceed because the plaintiffs' claims did not have enough in common to sue as a group. The plaintiffs allege that Goldman underpays women and promotes them less often than men. A grant of class-action status can result in larger awards and make it easier for people who otherwise could not sue on their own to recover. "The (Wal-Mart) holding has powerful relevance here," Goldman's lawyers wrote in papers filed on July 21 in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan where the lawsuit is pending. "The charge does not mention or allege any class-wide problem common to any 'similarly-situated women' plaintiff Chen-Oster seeks to represent. It does not set forth even one factual contention supposedly common to her and anyone else," Goldman's lawyers wrote. The proposed class action seeks to represent "similarly situated" current and former female associates, vice presidents and managing directors employed by the company. Men at the company "are viewed more favorably, receive more compensation, and are more likely to be promoted," the plaintiffs wrote. Goldman Sachs is accused of violating Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and New York City Human Rights Law. The women are seeking back pay, changes to compensation and promotion practices, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The June 20 Supreme Court ruling in Wal-Mart's favor, known as Dukes et al vs. Wal-Mart, is expected to have a significant impact on sex discrimination class-actions, because it makes it harder to win certification of large groups of plaintiffs. Pending sex-discrimination class actions that could be affected by the Wal-Mart ruling include cases against Costco Wholesale Corp., Toshiba Corp., Cigna Corp. and Bayer. The Wal-Mart decision asserted that "vague allegations of class- wide discrimination" are not enough to support a sex bias class action lawsuit, Goldman's attorneys wrote in the July 21 filing. The case is Chen-Oster et al vs. Goldman Sachs & Co and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, case no. 1:10-cv-06950 GROUPON INC: Faces Class Action Over Coupon Expiration Dates ------------------------------------------------------------ Dana Andrews, writing for St. Charles Patch, reports that deal-of- the-day Web site Groupon has declined to comment on a lawsuit filed in Kane County which alleges that the company's deals violate Illinois law. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of plaintiff Adam Dremak, claims that Groupon's coupons are actually gift certificates with expiration dates and violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A spokeswoman for Groupon would not comment on the pending litigation and indicated that the company never comments on litigation. She explained that a consumer always has the amount they paid to redeem with that merchant indefinitely and that if there is any problem with the merchant, consumers can always go to Groupon for a refund. A motion to get class-action certification was filed on behalf of all Illinois residents who purchased daily deals but did not use them by their stated expiration dates, according to an attorney representing the plaintiff. It seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent Groupon Inc., from issuing its daily deals with what it claims are illegal expiration dates. The Act requires an expiration date of not less than five years, said Attorney Matthew Herman of the law firm of the St. Charles- based Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers, who represents the plaintiff. Some deals expire after 30 days. The lawsuit states Mr. Dremak bought a Groupon deal for Nordstrom Rack that expired five weeks after he bought it. Mr. Herman said he would like Groupon to compensate consumers or allow them to use the daily deals in the time frame that the Act requires. According to Groupon, if a discounted deal expires and the consumer, for instance, paid $20 for a $40 deal, the consumer still has the $20 credit with the merchant. The $40 promotional value is what expires. Groupon's Web site and Frequently Asked Questions Page outlines Groupon's expiration policy. Mr. Herman declined to comment on the policy listed on the company's Web site. While the complaint against Groupon was initially filed in March, a press released dated July 20 announced the suit as motions seeking to advance the case were filed this week. What's next? Mr. Herman said he believes Groupon will answer the complaint sometime this week. The case is an individual lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Dremak. The motion for class certification is requesting the court to certify. "We also filed [Wednesday] a preliminary junction where we were asking the court to essentially make Groupon comply with the Illinois Fraud Act before we do all the discovery and get into the merits of the case," said Mr. Herman. HALLIBURTON CO: Continues to Defend Claims Over Macondo Incident ---------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company continues to defend itself from claims over the Macondo well incident, according to the Company's July 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on April 22, 2010, after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that began on April 20, 2010. The Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo exploration well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the lease operator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. The Company performed a variety of services for BP Exploration, including cementing, mud logging, directional drilling, measurement-while-drilling, and rig data acquisition services. Crude oil flowing from the well site spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and reached the United States Gulf Coast. Numerous attempts at estimating the volume of oil spilled have been made by various groups, and on August 2, 2010, the federal government published an estimate that approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil were discharged from the well. Efforts to contain the flow of hydrocarbons from the well were led by the United States government and by BP p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their affiliates (collectively, BP). The flow of hydrocarbons from the well ceased on July 15, 2010, and the well was permanently capped on September 19, 2010. There were eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result of the Macondo well incident. Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have been filing lawsuits relating to the Macondo well incident. Generally, those lawsuits allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful death or personal injuries. To date, the Company has been named along with other unaffiliated defendants in more than 400 complaints, most of which are alleged class actions, involving pollution damage claims and at least 40 personal injury lawsuits involving seven decedents and at least 59 allegedly injured persons who were on the drilling rig at the time of the incident. Another six lawsuits naming the Company and others relate to alleged personal injuries sustained by those responding to the explosion and oil spill. Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuits in federal and state courts throughout the United States, including Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Except for certain lawsuits not yet consolidated (including one lawsuit that is proceeding in Louisiana state court, nine lawsuits that are pending in Delaware federal court, two lawsuits that are pending in Texas federal court, and two lawsuits that are proceeding in Texas state court), the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered all of the lawsuits against the Company consolidated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before Judge Carl Barbier in the U.S. Eastern District of Louisiana. The pollution complaints generally allege, among other things, negligence and gross negligence, property damages, taking of protected species, and potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution and generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in these pollution cases have brought lawsuit under various legal provisions, including the The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), The Clean Water Act (CWA), The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, general maritime law, state common law, and various state environmental and products liability statutes. Furthermore, the pollution complaints include lawsuits brought against the Company by governmental entities, including the State of Alabama, the State of Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish, the City of Greenville, and three Mexican states. The wrongful death and other personal injury complaints generally allege negligence and gross negligence and seek awards of compensatory damages, including unspecified economic damages and punitive damages. The Company has retained counsel and are investigating and evaluating the claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted, and the Company's respective defenses to all of these claims. Judge Barbier is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed by Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation Action). In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its liability for claims arising out of the Macondo well incident to the value of the rig and its freight. Although the Limitation Action is not consolidated in the MDL, to this point the judge is effectively treating the two proceedings as associated cases. On February 18, 2011, Transocean tendered the Company, along with all other defendants, into the Limitation Action. As a result of the tender, the Company and all other defendants will be treated as direct defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if the plaintiffs had sued each of the Company and the other defendants directly. In the Limitation Action, the judge intends to determine the allocation of liability among all defendants in the hundreds of lawsuits associated with the Macondo well incident, including those in the MDL proceeding, that are pending in his court. Specifically, the judge will determine the liability, limitation, exoneration and fault allocation with regard to all of the defendants in a trial, which may occur in several phases, that is set to begin in the first quarter 2012. The Company does not believe, however, that a single apportionment of liability in the Limitation Action is properly applied to the hundreds of lawsuits pending in the MDL proceeding. Damages for the cases tried in the first quarter 2012, including punitive damages, are currently scheduled to be tried in a later phase of the Limitation Action. Under ordinary MDL procedures, such cases would, unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in the courts from which they were transferred into the MDL. It remains unclear, however, what impact the overlay of the Limitation Action will have on where these matters are tried. Document discovery and depositions among the parties to the MDL are underway. In April and May 2011, certain defendants in the proceedings filed numerous cross claims and third party claims against certain other defendants. BP Exploration and BP America Production Company filed claims against the Company seeking subrogation and contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA, and alleging negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent conduct, and fraudulent concealment. Transocean filed claims against the Company seeking indemnification, and subrogation and contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA and for the total loss of the Deepwater Horizon, and alleging comparative fault and breach of warranty of workmanlike performance. Anadarko filed claims against the Company seeking tort indemnity and contribution, and alleging negligence, gross negligence and willful misconduct, and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC (MOEX), who has an approximate 10% interest in the Macondo well, filed a claim against the Company alleging negligence. Cameron International Corporation (Cameron) (the manufacturer and designer of the blowout preventer), M-I Swaco (provider of drilling fluids and services, among other things), Weatherford U.S. L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (together, Weatherford) (providers of casing components, including float equipment and centralizers, and services), and Dril-Quip, Inc. (Dril-Quip) (provider of wellhead systems), each filed claims against the Company seeking indemnification and contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA in the case of Cameron, and alleging negligence. Additional civil lawsuits may be filed against the Company. In addition to the claims against the Company, generally the defendants in the proceedings filed claims, including for liabilities under the OPA and other claims similar to those previously filed cases, against other defendants. BP has since announced that it has settled those claims between it and each of Weatherford and MOEX. In April 2011, the Company filed claims against BP Exploration, BP p.l.c. and BP America Production Company (BP Defendants), M-I Swaco, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, Weatherford, Dril-Quip, and numerous entities involved in the post-blowout remediation and response efforts, in each case seeking contribution and indemnification and alleging negligence. The Company's claims also alleged gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part of the BP Defendants, Anadarko, and Weatherford. The Company also filed claims against M-I Swaco and Weatherford for contractual indemnification, and against Cameron, Weatherford and Dril-Quip for strict products liability. The Company filed its answer to Transocean's Limitation petition denying Transocean's right to limit its liability, denying all claims and responsibility for the incident, seeking contribution and indemnification, and alleging negligence and gross negligence. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend any litigation, fines, and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident. The Company has incurred and expects to continue to incur significant legal fees and costs, some of which the Company expects to be covered by indemnity or insurance, as a result of the numerous investigations and lawsuits relating to the incident. ILLINOIS: Transgender Plaintiffs Get Favorable Ruling ----------------------------------------------------- Rex W. Huppke, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a Cook County Circuit Court judge has ordered that the three lead plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the state can change the gender on their birth certificates even though they have not had genital surgeries. Judge Michael Hyman stayed the lawsuit -- which contests the state's policy of requiring transgender people to have "genital reformation surgery" before they can change the gender on their birth certificates -- until September, when a legislative committee will consider a proposed rule that could do away with the genital surgery requirement. "We're not happy about the stay," said John Knight, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Project at the ACLU of Illinois. "We think it's really just more delay, but the judge has allowed the state to have that time." Mr. Knight said that even if the new regulations are approved, the ACLU will continue to ask for a stronger "enforceable agreement with the state" that will guarantee transgender Illinoisans cannot be denied a birth certificate gender change because they have had not had genital surgery. The three lead plaintiffs -- Lauren Grey, Victor Williams and Nicholas Guarino -- will all have their birth certificates changed to reflect their gender identities. The lawsuit claims that for years, the state would change people's gender on their birth certificates even if they had not had any form of genital surgery, but that the policy seemed to change "in or about 2005." Many medical experts who work with people in the transgender community say that gender is more a factor of what a person identifies with than the person's anatomy. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal court dismissed a case against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson for allegedly concealing quality control problems and manufacturing defects. The class action represents a consolidation of individual cases filed in various courts, which were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case arises out of purported quality-control issues affecting certain over-the-counter medications manufactured by Johnson & Johnson's consumer health care division, McNeil Consumer Healthcare. The plaintiffs alleged that Johnson & Johnson and McNeil, along with certain executives, board members and third-party contractors, engaged in a conspiracy to conceal systemic quality control problems and manufacturing defects that began as early as 2008 and affected various adult and children's medications. Many of the medications were manufactured at McNeil's facility in Fort Washington, Pa. The plaintiffs said because of the company's scheme -- and relying on Johnson & Johnson's reputation for safe and effective medications -- they purchased the McNeil products at higher prices than they were worth. The plaintiffs sought to recover their out-of-pocket payments for the products in question and also sought damages for the alleged conspiracy to conceal the quality control problems. Johnson & Johnson, McNeil and the third-party contractors filed motions to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on the motions on June 29. U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, in the court's July 14 memorandum, granted the company's motions, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety for lack of standing. Standing is ordinarily a threshold issue for any case, the court said. "A plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself, even if it is an injury shared by a large class of other possible litigants." Judge McLaughlin said the consolidated amended complaint, or CAC, was "deficient" insofar as the plaintiffs did not allege which particular products they purchased. "Because the plaintiffs do not identify which products were purchased, it is impossible to match the many incidents outlined in the CAC with the specific drugs that fall under the Subject Products category," she wrote for the court. In addition, the plaintiffs did not allege how the unspecified products they purchased were defective. Instead, they allege only that each product suffered from "serious problems," Judge McLaughlin said. Even assuming that the "serious problems" encompass allegations of specific product recalls and FDA citations, the court said the plaintiffs fail to allege any personal harm arising therefrom. "In the absence of particularized harm, the plaintiffs' injuries are abstract and hypothetical, rather than distinct and palpable," it wrote. The plaintiffs, the court continued, also do not allege individualized injuries but rely entirely on injuries suffered by non-plaintiff class members. "As a consequence, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that a single named plaintiff suffered any of the many injuries identified by the plaintiffs," Judge McLaughlin wrote. All claims against the third-party contractor defendants -- Carolina Logistics Services LLC, Carolina Supply Chain Services LLC, WIS International and Inmar Inc. -- were dismissed with prejudice. All claims against Johnson & Johnson and McNeil were dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs, the court said, may file an amended complaint within 30 days of its order. LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Misleading Shareholders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim in a federal class action filed in Manhattan that Lockheed Martin inflated its share price through false and misleading statements from April 21 to July 21, 2009. OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Aug. 3 Settlement Opt Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Stoltmann Law Offices is warning victims of the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund and the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund that the class action opt out date is August 31, 2011. If investors who sustained losses in the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund and Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund do not affirmatively opt out of the class action lawsuit, they will not be able to pursue FINRA arbitration claims or lawsuits against Oppenheimer or the brokerage firms who recommended the Fund. According to Andrew Stoltmann: "If a Champion Income or Core Bond Fund victim is a member of the Class and wants to retain the right to sue or to continue to sue Oppenheimer and other related parties like brokerage firms, then they must take steps to get out of the Class. This is called excluding yourself and is sometimes referred to as 'opting out' of the Class. In order to properly exclude yourself, the investors must send in a written exclusion to class counsel and this must be postmarked no later than August 31, 2011. More information on how to properly opt out can be found at www.OppenheimerChampionSettlement.com." Mr. Stoltmann also states: "If investors in the Funds do nothing, they remain a member of the Class. If certain conditions are met and the settlement becomes effective, the Claims Administrator will send the class members a check for the settlement amount. It appears as though the amount will be approximately three cents on the dollar for the Champion Fund and twelve cents on the dollar for the Core Bond Fund. Unfortunately, the investor will not be able to bring a lawsuit or action of any kind, including arbitration or even continue with a lawsuit of any kind if they fail to opt out." According to Mr. Stoltmann: "We encourage victims to contact Stoltmann Law Offices to discuss whether FINRA arbitration claims against the brokerage firms who recommended the funds or lawsuits directly against Oppenheimer make more sense in order to maximize recovery prospects. We can assist in the opt out process for clients of our firm." Stoltmann Law Offices is currently representing approximately 80 victims of the Oppenheimer Champion Income and Core Bond Funds. The arbitration actions and lawsuits allege fraud, deceptive practices, negligence and misrepresentations and omissions related to the Fund's concentration in highly speculative derivative tranches, credit default swaps, total return swaps and other high risk derivatives. According to Mr. Stoltmann, "The Champion Income Fund was concentrated in extraordinarily speculative derivatives and other high risk investments. The Fund's marketing material, and even the prospectus, assured investors the fund would be less risky than the typical high income fund. As late as 2008, the prospectus stated 'In selecting securities for the Fund, the overall strategy is to build a broadly diversified portfolio to help moderate the special risks of investing in high-yield debt instruments. . .. The Fund is intended to be a long-term investment and may be appropriate as a part of a retirement plan portfolio.' Given the concentration in credit default swaps and other high risk derivatives, the Fund was not as it was represented to be. Thousands of investors' retirement accounts have been decimated." According to the arbitration claims and lawsuits, the Champion Income Fund took a massive bet in high risk derivatives in the form of mortgage backed securities, total return swaps and credit default swaps. Total-return swaps are highly illiquid, speculative and complex agreements between parties to exchange cash flows in the future based on how a set of securities perform. Credit default swaps are similar to insurance contracts that protect investors against bond and loan defaults. Specifically, the Fund took a massive gamble that top-rated commercial mortgage- backed securities would rally in 2008. According to Mr. Stoltmann, "Derivatives have been described by Warren Buffet as financial weapons of mass destruction. Derivatives have brought down Orange County, California, Barings Bank, and multiple other bond funds like the Piper Jaffray Institutional Government Income Portfolio in 1993. The SEC and FINRA have repeatedly warned financial institutions about concentrating mutual funds in high risk, speculative derivatives. Yet Oppenheimer thumbed its nose at these warnings and the results for thousands of retirees in Oppenheimer mutual funds have been a financial cataclysm." Through October of 2008, according to Yahoo Finance, the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund A Share was ranked 550 out of 562 high income funds. Of the 12 funds that performed worse, almost half were different share types of the Champion Income Fund. According to the statement of claims and lawsuits, the Champion Income Fund lost approximately 80% of its value during 2008, with nearly all of those losses occurring in the last 6 months of 2008. The fund lost a stunning 55% of its value in November 2008 alone. More information is available at: http://www.OppenheimerFundFraud.com - or - http://www.InvestmentFraud.Pro CONTACT: Andrew Stoltmann, Esq. Stoltmann Law Offices Telephone: 312-332-4200 Cellphone: 312-545-5711 10 S. LaSalle 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 POPULAR INC: November 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP disseminated a notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action against Popular, Inc. RUSSELL HOFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. POPULAR, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-01428-GAG (Consolidated) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who purchased or acquired Popular, Inc. common stock and/or 8.25% non-cumulative monthly income preferred stock series B during the time period between January 24, 2008 and February 19, 2009, inclusive, and were injured thereby. Please read this notice carefully. Your rights will be affected by a Class Action lawsuit pending in this Court. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico: (i) of the pendency of the above-captioned action as a class action on behalf of the persons and entities described above, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition; and (ii) that a settlement of the Action for $37,500,000 in cash has been proposed by the settling parties. A hearing will be held on November 2, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Gustavo A. Gelpi, at the Clemente Ruiz-Nazario U.S. Courthouse & Frederico Degetau Federal Building, 150 Carlos Chardon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, to determine, among other things: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as to the Settling Defendants and the Released Claims fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged as against the Settling Defendants and the other Released Persons; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be granted. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: Popular Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, P.O. Box 3145, Portland, OR 97208- 3145, 1-877-846-5276. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form may also be downloaded from the Web site maintained for the Settlement at http://www.PopularSecuritiesLitigation.com If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than October 11, 2011. If you are a member of the Class and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in the Action. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 11, 2011, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or the application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to counsel for the settling parties as set forth in the Notice such that they are received no later than October 11, 2011, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a member of the Class and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in the Action. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT POPULAR, THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may be made to Co-Lead Counsel: Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 and Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019. BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO POWERCOR: Black Saturday Class Action Mediation Begins ------------------------------------------------------ ABC News reports that mediation was set to start on July 25 in a legal challenge by Horsham residents affected by the Black Saturday bushfires, against electricity company Powercor. About 300 people, who lost property in the 2009 Remlaw fire, are involved in the class action against the power company. The Bushfires Royal Commission heard the fire began when a wire came free from a 47-year-old power pole and struck the ground. Retired Supreme Court judge Allan McDonald will oversee the mediation. ROSS STORES: Recalls 1,200 Acacia Chairs Due to Fall Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Ross Stores Inc., of Pleasanton, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,200 Acacia chairs. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The chair can collapse when weight is placed on it, posing a fall hazard to consumers. Ross has received five reports of the chair collapsing. Four minor injuries were reported. The recalled chairs have a natural finish made of acacia wood with SKU number 400058432585 or 400058432608 printed on the price tag. The price tag is white and located on the front of the seat's chair. There are no other markings on the chair. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11283.html The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold exclusively at Ross Stores nationwide between March 2011 and May 2011 for about $40. Consumers should immediately stop using these chairs and return them to any Ross Store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Ross at (877) 455-7677 anytime or visit the Ross Stores' Web site at http://www.rossstores.com/ THOMAS JEFFERSON: Files Response to Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the Thomas Jefferson School of Law has filed its response to a class action brought in May by a 2008 graduate alleging that the school misrepresented its graduate employment statistics. Essentially, it argued that the graduate hadn't done enough research before enrolling. Plaintiff Anna Alaburda graduated with honors from the school three years ago, but has been unable to land a steady law job since, according to the initial complaint. It says that she was lured to the school by the U.S. News law school rankings that reported that 80% of students had found jobs within nine months after graduating. That figure included all recent graduates who were in part-time or non-legal jobs, which is how law schools calculate their "employed after nine months" figures for the American Bar Association and U.S. News, the complaint said. Thomas Jefferson filed a demurrer and a motion to strike, essentially arguing that its job statistics were not falsified and that the school has no control over U.S. News. The school also argued that large portions of the complaint relating to the wider practice of how law schools report employment data are irrelevant to the charge that Thomas Jefferson lied about its jobs track record. "Plaintiff does not plead any specifics to [Thomas Jefferson's] factual data being false - because it wasn't," according to the demurrer filed on July 18 in Dan Diego County, Calif., Superior Court. "Instead, she pleads that she relied exclusively or primarily on the data in a summary chart in a popular magazine, misunderstood it, made no further inquiries, and then spent tens of thousands of dollars on her legal education." Ms. Alaburda's complaint estimated that there are more than 2,300 potential members of the class, based on the number of students who attended the school during the statutory period. It alleged fraud and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Act. It originally included a charge of violating the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act, but the complaint has since been amended to drop that claim. The suit seeks compensatory damages for the class of more than $50 million. TICKET RESERVE: Settles Super Bowl Ticket Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Alfred Branch Jr., writing for TicketNews, reports that The Ticket Reserve, Inc., the parent company of ticket options seller FirstDIBZ, has reached a settlement with 752 members of a class action lawsuit over the massive fraud over Super Bowl tickets that felled the company more than two years ago. TTR has agreed to pay a total of $529,920.74 under the terms of the settlement reached this week, which will reimburse the class members for a percentage of their online accounts where their money had been frozen since 2009 by the company. Included in that settlement figure are legal fees and other minor costs, so the pool of money that will be divided among the class members is just under $434,000. According to Pennsylvania attorney Andrew Sciolla, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, the class members will receive between 50% and 62% of their money, which is expected to be mailed out in early to mid-December. The exact percentage amount will be determined by a formula based on the number of class members who return claim forms. Mr. Sciolla is preparing to begin contacting the class members about the settlement, and once that begins those members are required to fill out the claim form to receive the payment. The class is made up of FirstDIBZ customers who had requested withdrawals from their accounts that TTR could not provide due to the fraud. "[The settlement is] not all that we had hoped to get, but customers have been waiting a long time for their money," Mr. Sciolla told TicketNews. "The settlement is a percentage of their [online] wallet funds, because the company informed us that it could not afford to meet all the obligations and they would have filed for bankruptcy and no one would have received anything." Mr. Sciolla said that several class members he has spoken to are generally pleased by the settlement. "Many are happy to get as much money as they can, because a lot of them had written it off as a bad investment. They understand that getting something is better than getting nothing. "The ones who might not be happy, who wanted all of their money back and damages, I hope that their disappointment will lessen over time." The class action lawsuit was filed in the spring of 2009 after hundreds of customers bought what turned out to be fraudulent "dibz" that would have allowed them to buy Super Bowl and NFL playoff tickets at face value. The tickets never existed and the fraud built on itself with buyers then reselling the dibz they had purchased. FirstDIBZ eventually had to shut down because it could not keep up with the demand caused by the sale and resale of the dibz; currently, TTR does not operate FirstDIBZ, but it licenses its platform to sporting events that want to operate ticket futures sites. While others have launched similar options sites, at least one other major one was also shut down. The site yoonew, while not a victim of a similar type of fraud, was forced to close in 2010 because it, too, could not meet its financial obligations. Under the terms of the FirstDIBZ settlement, class members will have the option of receiving the money, withdrawing from the class or rejecting the settlement, but regardless of which option they to take, class members must return the claim form they will be issued in the coming weeks, according to Mr. Sciolla. VARIAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Varian Semiconductor is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Applied Materials, for $4.9 billion or $63 per share. A copy of the Complaint in Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Dickerson, et al., Case No. 11-cv-11294 (D. Mass.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/22/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence K. Ankner, Esq. PARTRIDGE, ANKNER & HORSTMANN, LLP The Berkeley Building 200 Berkeley Street, 16th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 859-9999 - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Arshan Amiri, Esq. Lauren E. Rosner, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsumeda.com soddo@robbinsumeda.com aamiri@robbinsumeda.com lrosner@robbinsumeda.com - and - Paul M. Brannon, Esq. BRANNON LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 3500 North Hullen Street Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 456-8696 E-mail: PMB@BrannonLawFirm.com - and - Eric J. O'Bell, Esq. GAUTHIER, HOUGHTALING & WILLIAMS, LLP 3500 North Hullen Street Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 456-8600 YONGYE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on July 22 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of Yongye International, Inc., during the period from August 11, 2010, through May 18, 2011, inclusive, and is seeking to recover investors' damages from violations of federal securities laws. To join the Yongye class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 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 Yongye 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) Yongye's financial results as reported to the SEC were inconsistent with the Company's ability to produce the tonnage reported as shipments of sales; (b) Yongye's reported financial statements were grossly inflated by including revenue it had not earned; and (c) Yongye's business was not growing at the rate represented by defendants. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 25, 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 * Finra Proposal May Trigger Broker Class Actions ------------------------------------------------- Dan Jamieson, writing for InvestmentNews, reports that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. will be proposing a rule change that might help brokers pursue class action employment claims. Finra wants to ban from its arbitration forums so-called "collective action" claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. That would make it easer to pursue court claims, according to plaintiff's attorneys who filed the suits. The Finra board earlier authorized its staff to file a proposed rule change with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC would have to approve the proposal. The rule change is being sought after federal courts last fall, and again in February of this year, ordered that collective-action wage-and-hour cases be heard in Finra arbitrations. Finra has maintained that these types of cases, as well as class actions, are not allowed in its dispute resolution system. However, its rules mention class actions only. Collective actions require covered plaintiffs to opt into the lawsuit, whereas class actions require an opt-out. The actions by judges in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York effectively shut out federal courts as a venue for bringing collective actions under the FLSA, said Michael Palmer, an attorney at Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP -- mpalmer@jhllp.com -- who represented several broker plaintiffs in the lawsuits. The cases, Hugo Gomez et al. v. Brill Securities Inc., and Silva Alexander Velez v. PHD Capital Advisory Services LLC, had to be refiled in New York state court stripped of their FLSA claims, Mr. Palmer said. A rule change by Finra would help brokers pursue wage-and-hour claims, Mr. Palmer said. "It opens up the federal courts to us again" to bring FLSA claims, he said, referring to where most of those cases are heard. In the past, in banning class actions from the Finra arbitration system, Finra and the SEC have argued that such cases are better handled by courts. Barry Temkin, a lawyer at Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass -- btemkin@moundcotton.com -- who represented Brill Securities, declined to comment. Emily Hayes, an attorney at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP -- emily.hayes@wilsonelser.com -- who represented PHD Capital, did not return calls. Several years ago, all the major brokerage firms settled broker suits over alleged violation of wage-and-hour laws, as well as overtime violations. As a result, firms adjusted their expense- sharing policies and compensation plans, and some brokers received payments. ********* 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 * * *