/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110801.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 150 Headlines APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Lease Suit May Turn Into Class Action AT&T INC: Deceives Consumers by Overcharging Them, Suit Says BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Antitrust Laws Violation Suit in Calif. CASH STORE: Class Action Settlement Drags Profits Down CHINA FIRE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action CHINA SECURITY: Aug. 16 Hearing in Merger-Related Suits Set EBAY INC: Continues to Face Suits Over PayPal Business EBAY INC: Gets Favorable Judgment in Antitrust Suit in May 2011 EBAY INC: StubHub's Appeal in Ticket Resale Suit Pending EVANS TIRE: Faces Class Action Over Waste Tire Disposal Fee HONEYWELL INT'L: To Seek OK of $23.8M Deal in "Allen" Suit in 3Q HONEYWELL INT'L: Witness in MDL Guilty of Lying to Investigators ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit KINETICS CONCEPTS: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims KOHLER CO: Recalls 100 Shower Doors Due to Laceration Hazard LEGALZOOM.COM: Aug. 22 Trial Set for Missouri Class Action LEHMAN BROTHERS: Judge Sustains Securities Class Action Claims MAYTAG CORP: Whirlpool Can Change Retirees' Benefits MINDRAY MEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Action NESTLE WATERS: Faces Class Action Over Leaky Water Bottles NEWS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York NOTEWORLD LLC: Sued Over Exorbitant Debt Relief Fees ORION ENERGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Concluded in April PRIME-LINE: Recalls 37,000 Child Safety Latches & Outlet Covers PRIME-LINE PRODUCTS: Recalls 8,000 Child Bathtub Non-Slip Pads UNION BANK: Debit-Card Overdraft Suit Gets Class-Action Status UNION PACIFIC: Wal-Mart Case Ruling to Impact Antitrust Suits UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: "Snellink" Suit Pending in New Jersey U.S. PHARMACIES: 4th Cir. Won't Review Drug-Pricing Suit Ruling YAHOO: August 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ********* APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Lease Suit May Turn Into Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Brian Albert, writing for The Daily Iowan, reports that an ex-tenant's lawsuit against Apartments Downtown Inc., may still be argued in district court. The possibility follows a hearing on July 26, in which attorneys from both sides made their claims and counterclaims on whether the case qualifies for class-action status. The suit, originally filed in December 2010, alleges that numerous facets of the company's current and previous leases contain illegal clauses. "The case is perfect for the class-action vehicle," said Christopher Warnock, the attorney representing four plaintiffs, before an audience of approximately 15. "Many of the tenants are University of Iowa students, they're inexperienced, they're young, and they don't often know their rights." If argued in small-claims court, each case would be handled individually. To be deemed a class-action case, there must be at least 40 members of the class with claims totaling more than $5,000, and all members must be wronged in an identical manner. Though no tenant faced charges of more than $5,000, Mr. Warnock argued precedent shows any number of individuals who were identically wronged can pool their charges, thus pushing the total "well beyond" the threshold. He said the tenants were wronged because they all signed the same illegal contract -- whether the illegalities were willful and enforced or not. Specifically, he cited four indemnity clauses that free the landlord from paying for certain types of damages. "If you look into state statutes, it says very clearly that indemnity clauses are not allowed," Mr. Warnock said. "Well, they've got four indemnity clauses blatantly right in their lease, though they say there are none." James Affeldt, an attorney with the Elderkin and Pirnie law firm in Cedar Rapids -- jaffeldt@ElderkinPirnie.com -- and the legal representative of Apartments Downtown, argued the issue is actually about whether the clauses were willfully and knowingly written into the leases -- something he said Mr. Warnock failed to prove. "They were not forced to sign," Mr. Affeldt said. "No tenant is saying they didn't read it. No tenant is saying they didn't understand. These cases can be taken care of in small-claims court, and that's where it should go." After two hours of presentations, the judge said there was not enough information to make a decision either way, recommending the case continue with a declaratory judgment. Attorneys with each side of the case will meet on their own to discuss the best way to continue with the case before reconvening before a judge. Mr. Warnock said he was happy with the judge's decision. "If this declaratory judgment deems the Apartments Downtown leases to be illegal, we're looking at a great chance of moving this forward into class-action territory," he said. A declaratory judgment will determine if an active contract -- in this case the Apartments Downtown leases -- are legal. The plaintiff's other issues include charges for common-area damage and automatic cleaning charges -- something spectators in the room said they were familiar with. Christopher Copeland, a 23-year-old UI graduate, said he came to watch because he lost $500 of a $1,450 deposit. He supports the case. "There was a crack in my door's lockplate," Mr. Copeland said. "They billed me more than $250. That's technically public area, so it's an illegal charge. Who knows what they'll bill me for this time?" One UI student's mother, Kris Albert, said daughter Mara was also on the receiving end of an egregious billing charge -- which drew her to the hearing. "Apartments Downtown says if damage is done in a common area and they can't find out who did it, the tenants will be billed for it," Ms. Albert said. "Well, my daughter -- I know it wasn't smart -- confronted an intruder who broke down her door and got his ID. She went to the police and the landlords with this information, and she still got charged." Mr. Warnock said though he hasn't met a single student happy with her or his Apartments Downtown experience, he said his goal isn't to put it out of business. "We're not seeking a million-dollar settlement or something like that," he said. "We just want these landlords to change their business practices and follow the law. It's that simple." AT&T INC: Deceives Consumers by Overcharging Them, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Sherman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., a Delaware corporation; AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Midwest, a Delaware corporation; and, SBC Internet Services, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Internet Services, a California corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-26265 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 26, 2011) is seeking to stop the Defendants' unlawful practice of systematically overcharging consumers for residential Internet service. The Plaintiff alleges that AT&T advertises many promotional plans at reduced rates for residential Internet service and then bills those who sign up for the promotions at the standard higher rates. AT&T offered Internet service for $19.95 a month for a year, then charged $40 a month, customers claim in Cook County Court, Courthouse News Service reports. Mr. Sherman is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. AT&T Inc. is a publicly traded holding company. AT&T Midwest and AT&T Internet Services are operating subsidiaries of AT&T Inc. A copy of the Complaint in Sherman v. AT&T Inc., et al., Case No. 11CH26265 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/AT&T.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Aschenbrener, Esq. ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C. 10 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 462-4922 Facsimile: (312) 462-4923 E-mail: mja@aschenbrenerlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Antitrust Laws Violation Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- East Bay Housing & Finance Agency, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A.; UBS AG; UBS Financial Services, Inc.; UBS Securities, LLC; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.; Morgan Stanley; Piper Jaffray & Co.; Societe Generale SA; Wachovia Bank, N.A.; Wells Fargo & Company; National Westminster Bank, PLC; Natixis Funding Corp.; Natixis S.A.; CDR Financial Products, Inc.; George K. Baum & Co.; Sound Capital Management, Inc.; and Investment Management Advisory Group, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-03651 (N.D. Calif., July 26, 2011) alleges that the Defendants for violated the California antitrust laws, the California False Claims Act, and the United States antitrust laws. The Agency alleges a conspiracy among the Defendants and certain named and unnamed co-conspirators, to fix, maintain or stabilize the price of, and to rig bids and allocate customers and markets for, municipal derivatives sold in the United States and its territories. The Agency contends that the lawsuit arises out of an illegal agreement, understanding, and conspiracy among providers and brokers of Municipal Derivatives not to compete and to rig bids for Municipal Derivatives sold to issuers of Municipal Bonds. The Agency is a California nonprofit, public-benefit corporation, which runs a Lease-Purchase program so that moderate-income homebuyers who do not have funds for a down payment and some credit problems may purchase homes within the participating jurisdictions. In 2000, the Agency purchased Municipal Derivatives, including from certain Provider Defendants pursuant to a competitive bidding process overseen by certain Broker Defendants. The Provider Defendants issued and sold Municipal Derivatives to members of the Class during the Class Period. The Provider Defendants are Bank of America, Natixis Funding, Bear Stearns, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, NatWest, Piper Jaffray, Societe Generale, UBS, UBS Financial, Wachovia and Wells Fargo. The Broker Defendants acted as brokers for members of the Class in purchasing Municipal Derivatives from the Provider Defendants. The Broker Defendants are Natixis Funding, Investment Management, CDR, Baum, and Sound Capital. The Plaintiff also names numerous co- conspirators, including co-conspirator AIG Financial Products Corp. and SunAmerica Life Assurance Co. The Agency is represented by: Scott G. Emblidge, Esq. Sylvia M. Sokol, Esq. MOSCONE EMBLIDGE & SATER LLP 220 Montgomery Street Mills Tower, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-3599 Facsimile: (415) 362-2006 E-mail: emblidge@mesllp.com sokol@mesllp.com - and - Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com jsaveri@lchb.com efastiff@lchb.com - and - Steven E. Fineman, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com CASH STORE: Class Action Settlement Drags Profits Down ------------------------------------------------------ The Canadian Press reports that payday loan provider Cash Store Financial Services Inc. has cited expenses related to a class action settlement as well as higher taxes for a major decrease in its fiscal 2011 third-quarter profit. The company, which provides short-term advances and other financial services to income-earning consumers who may not be able to obtain them from traditional banks, said profits dropped to C$1.15 million, or seven cents per diluted share, in the three months ended June 30. That compared with earnings of C$5.5 million or 31 cents per share in the same 2010 period. Revenue rose to C$49.7 million from C$47.3 million. Cash Store said diluted earnings per share before class action settlement costs related to broker fees in British Columbia and related taxes were 19 cents compared with 31 cents in the same quarter last year. Meanwhile, the company's effective tax rate was 46.9% in the three months ended June 30 compared with 32.8% for the same period last year. "The effective tax rate is higher than the statutory tax rate of 28.6% due to a provision for certain prior-year income matters," the company said in a release. "Third-quarter overall revenue was up relative to the same period last year, with particularly strong performance achieved in the other revenue category, which has been an area of priority strategic focus for management," said chairman and CEO Gordon Reykdal. "Earnings were strong but decreased relative to the same period last year due to rate caps in regulated provinces and an increased drag on earnings due to the addition of 57 new branches over the past 12 months." Mr. Reykdal said the company anticipates earnings will increase as newer branches mature and loan volumes and revenues from other products continue to increase." CHINA FIRE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on July 27 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of the public shareholders of China Fire & Security Group, Inc. against the Company and its Board of Directors for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of China Fire by affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Tessitore v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc., C.A. No. 11-CV- 61580-WPD (S.D. Fla.). A copy of the Complaint is available at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/ChinaFire-CFSG The Complaint arises out of a May 20, 2011 press release announcing the Company had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Bain Capital, pursuant to which China Fire shareholders will receive $9.00 per share in cash for each share of China Fire common stock they own or approximately $265.5 million in the aggregate. The Complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in connection with Proposed Transaction, breached or aided and abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. In addition, the Complaint further alleges, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a materially misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material in assisting China Fire shareholders in making an informed decision whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all China Fire shareholders as of May 20, 2011. The plaintiff is represented by Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than sixty days from July 27. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (888) 969-4242 302-295-5310 E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States. CHINA SECURITY: Aug. 16 Hearing in Merger-Related Suits Set ------------------------------------------------------------ A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the consolidated stockholder action against China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., is scheduled for August 16, 2011, according to the Company's July 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On April 20, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with (1) Rightmark Holdings Limited, a British Virgin Islands company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Intelligent One Limited, a British Virgin Islands company wholly-owned by Mr. Guoshen Tu ("Rightmark"), (2) Rightmark Merger Sub Limited, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Rightmark ("Merger Sub") and (3) Mr. Guoshen Tu, which was subsequently amended and restated by the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 3, 2011, by and among the same parties. Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rightmark. Mr. Guoshen Tu is the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors and beneficially owns approximately 20.9% of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock. Between March 15, 2011, and April 26, 2011, six purported class action complaints related to the Merger (the "Stockholder Actions") were filed against some or all of the following: the Company, the members of the board of directors of the Company and Merger Sub. On March 15, 2011, the first of the Stockholder Actions was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Dziak v. China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6279-CS (the "Dziak Complaint"). The plaintiff in the Dziak Complaint alleges, among other things, (1) that members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with the Merger and (2) Mr. Guoshen Tu engaged in acts of self-dealing, unfair dealing, gross overreaching and breaches of his fiduciary duties. The Dziak Complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the Merger unless and until such time the defendants have acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value, an order directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the Company's stockholders, an award of compensatory damages and an award of fees, expenses and costs. From March 16, 2011, to April 26, 2011, five additional complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, seeking substantially the same relief and making substantially the same allegations as the Dziak Complaint. The additional complaints have the following captions: Levine v. China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6286-CS (filed March 16, 2011); Smith v. China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6292-CS (filed March 17, 2011); O'Connor v. China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6296-CS (filed March 18, 2011); Jamal v. China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6408-CS (filed April 22, 2011); and Musto v. China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6418-CS (filed April 26, 2011). Certain of the Stockholder Actions additionally allege, among other things, that the Company and Merger Sub have aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Certain of the Stockholder Actions additionally seek, among other things, (1) an order enjoining, preliminarily and permanently, the Merger, and (2) an order rescinding the Merger or awarding plaintiff and the class rescissory damages in the event that the Merger is consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment. On May 23, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel in Musto v. China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6418-CS, filed a motion with the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware seeking to consolidate five of the pending actions and to have counsel for Mr. Musto appointed as lead plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated action. On May 27, 2011, the Company, members of the special committee, Terence Yap, and Merger Sub, respectively, filed motions to dismiss the remaining action that was not part of the consolidation motion, Jamal v. China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6408-CS. On June 7, 2011, four plaintiffs (Levine, Smith, O'Connor, and Jamal) filed a joint Amended Complaint containing substantially the same allegations and seeking substantially the same relief as the prior complaints. T he joint Amended Complaint was accompanied by a motion for preliminary injunction to block the merger and a motion to expedite discovery. On June 10, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel in the Dziak, Levine, Smith, O'Connor, and Jamal actions filed a joint cross-motion to the Musto consolidation motion. The joint cross- motion also sought consolidation of all pending actions, but requested that the law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. be appointed as lead plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated action. At a hearing on June 30, 2011, the Court ordered that the six pending cases be consolidated and appointed Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. as the lead plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated action. "A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the consolidated action is scheduled to occur on August 16, 2011." New Stockholder Case On July 21, 2011, a purported class action complaint captioned Strum v. China Security & Surveillance Technology Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-CV-00646-UNA, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint, which names the same defendants as in the state actions, alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed on July 8, 2011, is materially false and misleading and that the Merger is unfair to stockholders. It asserts claims under the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as common law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting consummation of the Merger and damages in the event the Merger is consummated. EBAY INC: Continues to Face Suits Over PayPal Business ------------------------------------------------------ eBay Inc. and its subsidiary, PayPal Inc., continue to face two class action lawsuits pending in California, according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits (Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. eBay Inc. and PayPal, Inc.; and Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. These lawsuits contain allegations that PayPal improperly held user's funds or otherwise improperly limited user's accounts. These lawsuits seek damages as well as changes to PayPal's practices among other remedies. The Company says a determination that there have been violations of laws relating to PayPal's practices can expose PayPal to significant liability. Changes to PayPal's practices that may result from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur significant costs and to expend product resources, which could cause delay to other planned product improvements, which would further harm the Company's business. If PayPal is unable to provide quality customer support operations in a cost-effective manner, PayPal's users may have negative experiences, PayPal may receive additional negative publicity, its ability to attract new customers may be damaged, and it could become subject to additional litigation. As a result, current and future revenues could suffer, losses could be incurred, and its operating margins may decrease. In addition, the Company says, negative publicity about, or negative experiences with, customer support for any of the Company's businesses could cause its reputation to suffer or affect consumer confidence in its brands individually or as a whole. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. EBAY INC: Gets Favorable Judgment in Antitrust Suit in May 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------- In May 2011, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ruling granting eBay Inc.'s summary judgment motion and denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot in a consolidated antitrust lawsuit, according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. In March 2007, a plaintiff filed a purported antitrust class action lawsuit against eBay in the Western District of Texas alleging that eBay and its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal Inc. "monopolized" markets through various anticompetitive acts and tying arrangements. The plaintiff alleged claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state law claims. In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07-CV- 01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action. The complaint seeks treble damages and an injunction. In 2007, the case was consolidated with other similar lawsuits (No. 07-CV-01882JF). In June 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In March 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss the tying claims with leave to amend and denied the motion with respect to the monopolization claims. Plaintiffs subsequently decided not to refile the tying claims. The plaintiffs' motion on class certification and the Company's motion for summary judgment were heard by the court in December 2009. In March 2010, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot, and entered judgment in the Company's favor. Plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's decision, the matter is fully briefed and oral argument was presented in April 2011 before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2011, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's ruling. EBAY INC: StubHub's Appeal in Ticket Resale Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------- An appeal by eBay Inc.'s StubHub business from a lower court's ruling that StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices statute is pending, according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that the Company's StubHub business sold (and facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale price law (which has been subsequently amended). In February 2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that immunity under the Communications Decency Act did not apply. The trial court further held that StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices statute as it pertains to the two named plaintiffs, and certified its decision for immediate appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. StubHub has appealed this decision. Some event organizers and professional sports teams have expressed concern about the resale of their event tickets on the Company's sites. Lawsuits alleging a variety of causes of actions have in the past, and may in the future, be filed against StubHub and eBay by venue owners, competitors, ticket buyers and unsuccessful ticket buyers. The Company says such litigation could result in damage awards, could require it to change its business practices in ways that may be harmful to its business, or could otherwise negatively affect its tickets business. EVANS TIRE: Faces Class Action Over Waste Tire Disposal Fee ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Evans Tire & Service Centers charge a $4 per tire "waste tire disposal fee" without disclosing to customers and service are optional. A copy of the Complaint in Descano v. Evans Tire & Service Centers, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2011-0009-4991 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/Tires.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Gallo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO 12702 Via Cortina, Suite 500 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (858) 509-3652 E-mail: djgsan@aol.com - and - Megan Anne Richmond, Esq. MEGAN A. RICHMOND, APC 3110 Camino del Rio South, Suite 314 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (714) 349-0555 HONEYWELL INT'L: To Seek OK of $23.8M Deal in "Allen" Suit in 3Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. is expecting to submit to the court for approval in the third quarter of 2011, settlement documents resolving the "Allen" lawsuit for $23.8 million, according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged by plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan were dismissed with prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million (paid from the Company's pension plan) and the maximum aggregate liability for the remaining three claims (alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension benefits of certain employees of a predecessor entity when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at $500 million. In October 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim regarding the calculation of benefits. In May 2011, the parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement in principle to settle the three remaining claims for $23.8 million (also to be paid from the Company's pension plan). The Company expects to submit settlement documents to the court for classwide approval in the third quarter of 2011 and anticipate a fairness hearing on the settlement in the fourth quarter of 2011. Upon court approval of the settlement, all claims in this matter will be fully resolved. HONEYWELL INT'L: Witness in MDL Guilty of Lying to Investigators ---------------------------------------------------------------- The principal witness of the plaintiffs in a multi-district litigation against filter manufacturers, including Honeywell International Inc., pled guilty to a felony count for having made false statements to federal investigators, according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This lawsuit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the defendants. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The U.S. cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. In April 2011, the multi-district litigation was stayed pending an investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to plaintiff's principal witness for possible violations of federal law. In June 2011, plaintiff's principal witness pled guilty to a felony count of having made false statements to federal investigators. The Company believes the claims against Honeywell are without merit and it will vigorously defend against the claims raised in these actions. As previously reported, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified Honeywell in January 2010 that it had officially closed its investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto filters industry. ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's July 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On November 3, 2010, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the following caption: Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Securities Litigation"). On January 21, 2011, the court named the Wyoming Retirement System as the lead plaintiff in the Securities Litigation. On April 1, 2011, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities Litigation under the following caption: In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities and Shareholder Derivative Litigation. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that: -- the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by creating and implementing a systemically predatory business model that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's common stock during the class period by misrepresenting its financials and future business prospects; -- the defendants' misrepresentations and material omissions caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the class period; and -- the market's expectations were ultimately corrected on August 13, 2010, when the U.S. Department of Education published the loan repayment rate of the Company's students under a formula contained in proposed regulations published by the ED on July 26, 2010. The putative class period in this action is from October 23, 2008, through August 13, 2010. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, and an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and expert fees. The officers named in one or more of the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits include: Jeffrey R. Cooper, Clark D. Elwood, Nina F. Esbin, Eugene W. Feichtner, Daniel M. Fitzpatrick, Kevin M. Modany and Martin Van Buren. The Company says all of the defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the complaint. There can be no assurance, however, that the ultimate outcome of this or other actions (including other actions under federal or state securities laws) will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. KINETICS CONCEPTS: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Kinetics Concepts is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Apax Partners, for $6.3 billion or $68.50 a share. A copy of the Complaint in Dunn v. Kinetics Concepts, Inc., et al., Case No. 2011CI11943 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Bexar Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 8117 Preston Road, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: 214-706-9314 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Henry J. Young, Esq. THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. 121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: 610-225-2677 E-mail: hjy@weiserlawfirm.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Louis Boyasky, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 KOHLER CO: Recalls 100 Shower Doors Due to Laceration Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Kohler Co., of Kohler, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary recall of about 100 Kohler Purist(R), Pinstripe(TM) and Finial(R) glass shower doors. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The hinge panel of the shower door can shatter, posing a laceration hazard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recall involves a 1/2 inch thick hinge panel included in the Kohler Purist(R), Pinstripe(R) and Finial(R) frameless heavy glass pivot shower doors. The hinge panel was sold as a component under part numbers 705753-L-NA, 705754-L-NA and 705760-L-NA in various shower door packages as described in these tables. Part # 705760-L-NA hinge panel included in these products for 42" wide 1/2" thick doors: Product Description Product Model # ------------------- --------------- Purist(R) Heavy Glass Pivot 705703-L-ABV, 705703-L-NX, Shower Door 705703-L-SHP, 705715-L-ABV, 705715-L-NX, and 705715-L-SHP Pinstripe(TM) Heavy Glass 705709-L-ABV, 705709-L-NX, Pivot Shower Door 705709-L-SHP, 705721-L-ABV, 705721-L-NX, and 705721-L-SHP Finial(R) Heavy Glass Pivot 705727-L-ABV, 705727-L-BH, Shower Door 705727-L-NX, 705727-L-SHP, 705739-L-ABV, 705739-L-BH, 705739-L-NX, and 705739-L-SHP Part # 705753-L-NA hinge panel included in these products for 48" wide 3/8" thick doors: Product Description Product Model # ------------------- --------------- Purist(R) Heavy Glass Pivot 705704-L-ABV, 705704-L-NX, Shower Door 705704-L-SHP, 705716-L-ABV, 705716-L-NX, and 705716-L-SHP Pinstripe(TM) Heavy Glass 705710-L-ABV, 705710-L-NX, Pivot Shower Door 705710-L-SHP, 705722-L-ABV, 705722-L-NX, and 705722-L-SHP Finial(R) Heavy Glass Pivot 705728-L-ABV, 705728-L-BH, Shower Door 705728-L-NX, 705728-L-SHP, 705740-L-ABV, 705740-L-BH, 705740-L-NX, and 705740-L-SHP Part # 705754-L-NA hinge panel included in these products for 60" wide 3/8" thick doors: Product Description Product Model # ------------------- --------------- Purist(R) Heavy Glass Pivot 705705-L-ABV, 705705-L-NX, Shower Door 705705-L-SHP and 705705-ZZ-SHP Pinstripe(TM) Heavy Glass 705711-L-ABV, 705711-L-NX, Pivot Shower Door and 705711-L-SHP Finial(R) Heavy Glass Pivot 705729-L-ABV, 705729-L-BH, Shower Door 705729-L-NX, and 705729-L-SHP The hinge panels have a tempering date code imprinted on a bottom corner of the panel, and only hinge panels having a tempering date code of "05/09" are included in this recall. The hinge panels are the side panels opposite the shower door handle, on which the metal swing hinge is mounted. The tempering date code also includes the name "Guardian" above the tempering date. If the hinge is covering the tempering date code on the glass panel, please call Kohler Co. at the toll-free number listed below. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11286.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold through various plumbing distributors nationwide from May 2009 through November 2010 for between $1,700 and $3,000. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shower doors and contact Kohler for a free replacement hinge panel. An Authorized Service Representative (ASR) from Kohler will remove the old hinge panel and install a new hinge panel. For additional information, contact Kohler Co. toll-free at (866) 782-6329 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kohler.com/ LEGALZOOM.COM: Aug. 22 Trial Set for Missouri Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Koppel, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that there is a Missouri class action set for trial this month, which is worth following. The case claims that LegalZoom.com, which sells do-it-yourself wills, leases and other documents online, is illegally practicing law in the state of Missouri. Missouri federal judge, Nanette K. Laughrey, partially rejected LegalZoom's motion for summary judgment and set the case for trial on August 22. In a statement issued on July 26, LegalZoom said that if the plaintiffs win at trial, it could dramatically impact the availability of self-help legal books and forms in Missouri. "If the plaintiffs are successful, we believe it is going to become a lot more expensive for small businesses and individuals to obtain basic legal forms," Chas Rampenthal, Legal Zoom's General counsel, said in the statement. "Missouri would become the only state in the nation to take away a consumer's right to access online legal document software." The LawBlog on July 27 talked to David Butsch, counsel to the plaintiffs' class, which, he said, consists of as many as 15,000 users of LegalZoom products. The suit contends that by selling online legal documents, LegalZoom is violating a Missouri law that bars non-lawyers from preparing legal documents. "The state licensure of attorneys was established to protect the public from those untrained and uneducated in the practice of law," Mr. Butsch said. The preparation of wills and other legal documents "may seem simple to a layman, but they aren't," he added. "There are consequences of signing a will . . . and those consequences can be great and they can't be properly communicated by a company over the internet." The Journal asked Mr. Butsch about the concern that many have voiced that legal services are cost prohibitive to many consumers, a problem that has likely become even more acute in recent years. Aren't online legal documents, however crude, preferable to having folks go without any form of legal guidance? In response, Mr. Butsch noted that there is now a glut of legal talent in the market, with many law graduates unable to find full-time employment. That fact, he said, has made customized legal help from practicing lawyers increasingly affordable. "I know quite a few lawyers who offer a quality legal service at very good rates," he said. LEHMAN BROTHERS: Judge Sustains Securities Class Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- On July 27, 2011, in one of the most significant class action lawsuits to arise out of the financial crisis, District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan sustained, in large part, claims asserted by former Lehman Brothers shareholders in a federal securities action related to the company's 2008 collapse. In a 106-page opinion, Judge Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged federal securities claims against former officers and directors of Lehman Brothers, including former CEO Richard S. Fuld and former CFO Erin Callan, Lehman's auditor, Ernst & Young, and fifty-one underwriters that assisted Lehman Brothers in issuing billions of dollars in now-worthless securities to the investing public prior to its bankruptcy. Plaintiffs, which include Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association, the Government of Guam Retirement Fund, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee, the City of Edinburgh Council as Administering Authority of the Lothian Pension Fund, and the Operating Engineers Local 3 Trust Fund, had alleged, among other things, that the defendants materially misrepresented Lehman's financial position through the use of "Repo 105" transactions, and made material misstatements and omissions regarding Lehman's risk exposures and risk management systems. Judge Kaplan found that Lehman's use of "Repo 105" transactions, which the company used to artificially improve its reported capital position by temporarily removing assets from its balance sheet at quarter-end, "paint[ed] a misleading picture of the company's financial position at the end of each quarter." He also found that the defendants' repeated statements regarding the "strong" and "conservative" nature of Lehman's risk management systems were materially false and misleading "given the allegations of frequent, significant departures from Lehman's internally stated policies." Co-Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP are pleased that the Court allowed shareholders' core allegations in this matter to proceed, and look forward to proving the allegations in the Complaint. Co- Lead Counsel views the Court's decision as an important victory for shareholders whose investments were decimated by Lehman's demise. MAYTAG CORP: Whirlpool Can Change Retirees' Benefits ---------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Crumb, writing for The Associated Press, reports that benefits for about 3,000 Maytag Corp. retirees can be changed by Whirlpool in an effort to bring them in line with current employees, according to a federal judge's ruling. Whirlpool Corp. purchased the Newton, Iowa-based company in 2006 and sought to end medical benefits Maytag retirees claimed they were owed under a previous collective bargaining agreement. The Benton Harbor, Mich.-based Whirlpool filed a lawsuit as a class action complaint in 2008 against the international and local chapters of the United Auto Workers union and three retired Maytag workers as representatives of the class seeking to modify medical benefits for Maytag retirees. The case went to trial in December, 2010, and recently a federal judge in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Iowa, ruled in favor of Whirlpool. Court records show the company proposed changing retirees' medical benefits during contract talks but the union refused to discuss the issue. The company proposed modifying health benefits for the retirees to bring the benefits in line with the plan for current Whirlpool employees, retirees and their dependents. The union argued the company could not change the benefits because they were covered by the contract Maytag workers had with Maytag. At issue in the case was the union's argument that Maytag agreed to vest retiree medical benefits and promised benefits for the lifetime of each retiree and their dependents. The court disagreed and said the union failed to present evidence the company agreed to vest medical benefits of retirees. "The court is not unaware of the expectation of the Newton retirees nor unsympathetic in the result reached herein," U.S. District Court Judge James Gritzner wrote in his decision, filed on July 22. "However, the union has not carried its burden . . . of showing that the company agreed to vest retiree medical benefits. "Regardless of what either side was thinking about vesting . . . the union had the obligation to . . . present evidence that the company agreed to provide vested retiree medical benefits," Mr. Gritzner wrote. Larry Shaver, 64, who retired from Maytag in 2002, told The Associated Press, that Maytag employees contributed money out of their paychecks every month to be put into accounts to pay for their health benefits after they retired, only to have the benefits eliminated by Whirlpool. "I feel like somebody stabbed me in the heart," said Mr. Shaver, who acts as a spokesman for the Maytag retirees. He said Maytag retirees received 100% coverage with no out-of- pocket expenses or deductibles. Under the Whirlpool plan, retirees under age 64 pay $237 a month per person with a $500 deductible. They then pay 20% of their medical expenses up to $3,500, he said. Retirees over age 65 pay nearly $50 a month with a $500 deductible and then pay 20% of their expenses, Mr. Shaver said. "Nothing is ever covered at 100%," he said. Mr. Shaver said the union was working with attorneys to determine if it will appeal. L.D. Funk, another Maytag retiree, said he also feels betrayed by Whirlpool. "When they bought out Maytag, they bought it as a whole, they bought all of it, they bought its debt, they bought its properties and they bought its obligations," said Mr. Funk, now 73. "I feel like I was one of those obligations because I worked there 28-29 years knowing I was putting money away for my older years and I felt safe and secure. "Now it's left me and a whole lot of other people in a whole different situation," Mr. Funk said. Whirlpool officials released a statement on July 26 that said its health care plan is "superior to plans offered by 75% of Fortune 500 companies. "We are pleased that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that these changes are appropriate," the company's statement said. Whirlpool bought rival Maytag in 2006 for $1.7 billion and assumed the negotiated union contracts and related benefit plans. Whirlpool closed the Maytag corporate headquarters in Newton and a laundry equipment factory in the town of about 15,000 located 30 miles east of Des Moines. About 1,800 workers lost their jobs. MINDRAY MEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor, LLP on July 27 disclosed that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Mindray Medical International Limited during the period of January 11, 2010, and August 9, 2010. If you are an affected investor, and you want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the action, contact: Patrick Powers, Esq. Powers Taylor, LLP Telephone: 877-728-9607 E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com - or - Willie Briscoe, Esq. The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC Telephone: 877-397-5991 E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com There is no cost or fee to you. It has been alleged that during the Class Period, Mindray and certain of its officers and directors made materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material information related to the company's business and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that Mindray was experiencing declining sales domestically due to the lack of Chinese government tenders and a slowdown in non-tender Chinese sales; (b) that Mindray's sales of its diagnostics and ultrasound equipment were not performing according to internal expectations; (c) that Mindray was confronting increased competition in the market for larger hospital systems in China; and (d) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Mindray and its prospects. The Briscoe Law Firm is a full service business litigation, commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20 years of experience in complex litigation and transactional matters. Powers Taylor, LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression, shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions. NESTLE WATERS: Faces Class Action Over Leaky Water Bottles ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Nestle Waters North America and Deer Park Natural Spring Water sell 3- and 5-gallon water bottles, for coolers, with pinholes near the mouth that leak profusely, damaging floors. A copy of the Complaint in Rosenfarb, et ux. v. Nestle Waters North America, et al., Case No. 11-cv-04693 (E.D. Pa.) (Rufe, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/Bottles.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: David T. Shulick, Esq. SHULICK LAW OFFICES 100 N. 18th Street Two Logan Square, Suite 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-5488 E-mail: david@shulicklawoffices.com NEWS CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Greg Jacobs, writing for Goal Group, reports that a US shareholder who purchased $38,000 in News Corp. shares earlier this year filed a class action lawsuit against the global media group on July 22, claiming that News Corp., the Murdochs, and Rebekah Brooks intentionally covered up and concealed the phone hacking offenses. The investor, Lewis Wilder, has initiated the first federal-level lawsuit against the News Corp. US division in regard to their British newspaper's damage on the company's share price because of the illegal activities that have been revealed in recent weeks. Mr. Wilder, who bought 1,000 News Corp. shares in late April and 1,000 more in early June through an associated trust, has accused Rupert and James Murdoch of having "affirmatively sanctioned or, at the very least, turned a blind eye to the rampant illegality taking place at News Corp's newspapers." Mr. Wilder sold his 2,000 shares on July 12, causing him to lose $5,271. The case, filed in New York, alleges that News Corp. and its executives participated in fraudulent, deceptive and misleading behavior and breached the US Securities Exchange Act by issuing "materially false and misleading" statements to investors from March 3 to July 11. This lawsuit has the potential to cover thousands of shareholders who traded millions of shares in that period. Mr. Wilder asserts that News Corp. and its senior executives "either had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and omissions of material facts [about the hacking] . . . or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain and disclose the truth about News Corp.'s illegal activities, even though the truth was available to them". The New York Southern District Court must certify the US case before it can proceed as a class action. NOTEWORLD LLC: Sued Over Exorbitant Debt Relief Fees ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims NoteWorld and "its network of conspirators" charged "exorbitant and abusive fees" for so-called "debt relief" services. A copy of the Complaint in Rajagopalan v. NoteWorld, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-05573 (W.D. Wash.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/DebtRelief.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com - and - Stuart M. Paynter, Esq. Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq. THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC 1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 626-4486 ORION ENERGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Concluded in April -------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class action lawsuit over Orion Energy Systems, Inc.'s initial public offering has been concluded in April 2011, according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011. In February and March 2008, three class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, several of its officers, all members of its then existing board of directors, and certain underwriters relating to the Company's December 2007 initial public offering (IPO). The plaintiffs claimed to represent those persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock from December 18, 2007, through February 6, 2008. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the defendants made misstatements and failed to disclose material information in the Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus. The complaints alleged various claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On August 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 15, 2008, the Company and the other director and officer defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and the underwriters filed a separate motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 16, 2009. After oral argument on August 19, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint on September 4, 2009, and the defendants filed an answer to the complaint on October 9, 2009. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuits and on January 3, 2011, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. After a fairness hearing on April 14, 2011, the court approved the settlement in a final judgment and order. No shareholder appeared at the hearing to object. Accordingly, the case has concluded. Of the final settlement amount of $3.25 million, the Company contributed $0.49 million and its insurer contributed $2.76 million. The Company recorded the settlement charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010. PRIME-LINE: Recalls 37,000 Child Safety Latches & Outlet Covers ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Prime-Line, of Redlands, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 37,000 safety latches and outlet covers. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The screws on the safety latches and outlet covers can loosen and/or break. When this happens, young children can gain access to electrical outlets and other potentially hazardous items. Prime-Line has received four reports of screws breaking. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Prime-Line child safety drawer and cabinet latches and outlet covers with rotating receptacle covers. These products were sold under the brand name Child Safe. The drawer and cabinet latches were sold three per package, in model number S 4439 with SKU 049793044396, and model number S 4444 with SKU 049793044440. The outlet covers were sold one per package, in ivory, model number S 4447 with SKU 049793044471, and white, model number S 4461 with SKU 049793044617. The model number and SKU are printed on the back of the package. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11284.html The recalled products were manufactured in China. Drawer and cabinet latches were sold at Ace Hardware, Bostwic-Braun, Cal-Do- It Centers, Do-It-Best, Friedman Brothers, Menards, Orgill, The Andersons Inc. and True Value stores nationwide between October 2010 and June 2011 for between $2.50 and $2.70. Outlet covers were sold at Ace Hardware, Cimarron Lumber & Supply, Do-It-Best, Friedman Brothers, Handy Hardware, Menards and W.E. Aubuchon stores nationwide between October 2009 and June 2011 for about $3.50. Consumers should immediately contact Prime-Line to receive a free replacement kit. For additional information, contact Prime-Line toll-free at (855) 839-9555 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.prime-line-products.com/ PRIME-LINE PRODUCTS: Recalls 8,000 Child Bathtub Non-Slip Pads -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Prime-Line Products Company Inc., of Redlands, California, announced a voluntary recall of about 8,000 bathtub non-slip pads. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Some pads do not stick to the bathtub surface, posing a fall hazard to consumers. Prime-Line has received one report of the pad failure. No injuries were reported. The recalled items are whale-shaped, white, vinyl, non-slip bathtub pads with textured surfaces and adhesive backings and are used to help prevent children from slipping and falling in bathtubs. The pads come in sets of 12 and 15. Each set contains pads that range in size from 2 to 4 inches tall. The model number is S-4630 and SKU number is 049793846303. Both are printed on the back of the packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11285.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ace Hardware & Menards nationwide between May 24, 2010, and June 13, 2011, for about $6. Consumers should immediately stop using the pads and contact Prime-Line to receive a full refund. For additional information, contact Prime-Line at (855) 839-9555 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time. Consumers also can visit the Prime-Line Web site at http://www.prime-line-products.com/ UNION BANK: Debit-Card Overdraft Suit Gets Class-Action Status -------------------------------------------------------------- Ylan Q. Mui, writing for The Washington Post, reports that consumers who say they were wrongfully charged overdraft fees won class-action status on July 26 in their lawsuit against a San Francisco bank, the first in a series of cases pending against some of the nation's largest financial institutions. The suit claims that Union Bank processed debit-card transactions from largest to smallest, rather than chronologically, to increase the risk that customers would overdraw their checking accounts. Cynthia Larsen of Riverside, Calif., said the bank charged her three overdraft fees of $32 each in 2009. If her purchases had cleared in the order she made them, she would have overdrafted once, she said. According to her attorney, the bank estimated that reordering transactions would generate $18 million in fees annually. A spokesman for Union Bank declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. The case is part of multidistrict litigation, involving about 30 banks, that is before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in the Southern District of Florida. Bank of America agreed to settle its suit for $410 million this year. The judge has yet to decide the status of the cases against Chase and U.S. Bank, among others. But co-lead attorney Bruce Rogow of the Alters Law Firm said that the July 26 action sets the stage for similar decisions. Mr. Rogow said the class could encompass hundreds of thousands of consumers charged millions of dollars in fees. Last year, Wells Fargo was forced to return $203 million to consumers after it lost a separate class-action suit. "All the banks will fall, ultimately," Mr. Rogow said. "The class certification order is a precedent that will apply to all of the other banks because they all engaged in the same practice." Overdraft fees have long been a target of consumer advocates, who say they unfairly punish low-income people. Last year, after a public outcry over the charges and congressional scrutiny, the Federal Reserve instituted rules that largely prohibited banks from allowing customers to overdraw their accounts and get hit with a fee unless they signed up for the service. Although the Fed rules did not address the order in which transactions are processed, many banks have dropped the practice -- or discontinued their overdraft programs altogether. Still, the service remains popular with some people. The financial consulting firm Moebs Services said that about 77% of bank customers have opted in. Based on first quarter results, overdraft revenues would be $30 billion, the lowest level since 2006. UNION PACIFIC: Wal-Mart Case Ruling to Impact Antitrust Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia required parties to the consolidated antitrust lawsuit against railroad companies, including Union Pacific Corporation, to confer on the impact of a recent Supreme Court decision relating to the plaintiffs' class certification motion, according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Twenty small rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against the Company and four other Class I railroads in the U.S (one railroad was eventually dropped from the lawsuit). The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007, and the additional plaintiffs filed claims in district courts in various states, including Florida, Illinois, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. These lawsuits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic. The Company received additional complaints following the initial claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 30. In addition to lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of rail transportation, a few of the lawsuits involved plaintiffs alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation and seeking to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Subsequently, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints against UPRR and three other Class I railroads. One additional shipper filed a separate anti-trust lawsuit during 2008. Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. On October 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with respect to the defendant railroads' motions to dismiss. In a ruling on November 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the motion with respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, and pretrial proceedings are underway in that case. On December 31, 2008, Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers based upon state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. He also ruled, however, that these plaintiffs could proceed with their claim for injunctive relief under the federal antitrust laws, which is identical to a claim by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. The indirect purchasers appealed Judge Friedman's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state laws. Judge Friedman conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011, Judge Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Wal-Mart employment discrimination case. The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 20, 2011, and Judge Friedman required the parties to confer on the impact of the Wal-Mart decision within 30 days. The Company's subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Railroad"), received a copy of a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 7, 2011, by Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC and related entities (Oxbow). The complaint named certain U.S. Class I Railroads, including the Railroad, as defendants and alleged that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing and monopolistic practices in connection with fuel surcharge programs and pricing of shipments of certain commodities, including coal and petroleum coke. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and payment of damages of over $30 million, and other unspecified damages, including treble damages. Some of the allegations in the complaint are addressed in the existing fuel surcharge litigation. The complaint also includes additional unrelated allegations regarding alleged limitations on competition for shipments of Oxbow's commodities. The Company denies the allegations that its fuel surcharge programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws and deny the other allegations in the Oxbow complaint. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and it will vigorously defend its actions. Therefore, the Company currently believes that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on any of its results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: "Snellink" Suit Pending in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- Universal Travel Group continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit filed by Albert Snellink in New Jersey, according to the Company's July 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On April 15, 2011, the plaintiff Albert Snellink commenced a putative class action in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey against the Company, and Jiangping Jiang, Yizhao Zhang and Jing Xie, officers of the Company. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges a claim for violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against all defendants, and a claim for a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants in connection with purported misrepresentations contained in the Company's public filings and press releases. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and his costs incurred in the action. The Company's time to answer or move with respect to the complaint has not yet expired. The Company believes that the allegations of complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. U.S. PHARMACIES: 4th Cir. Won't Review Drug-Pricing Suit Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal appeals court has declined to review its rejection of a claim made by prescription drug retailers who said West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw is acting like a class action lawyer. In a 2-1 vote in May, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Mr. McGraw did not file a class action against the companies and that his lawsuit, which alleges they did not pass savings on generic drugs to consumers, should be heard in a state court. On July 21, the court declined a request to have the full roster of Fourth Circuit judges hear the matter. The request made by the group of pharmacies -- which includes Wal- Mart, Target, CVS, Walgreen, Kroger and Kmart -- was supported by the Washington Legal Foundation and the Allied Educational Foundation. The two submitted an amicus brief. In its appeal brief, the group of pharmacies claimed Mr. McGraw's lawsuit satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the federal CAFA. "The AG's allegations make abundantly clear that more than $5 million and the interests of more than 100 persons are at issue. If the rightful interests of the West Virginia consumers on whose behalf the AG has brought suit are recognized, there also is undeniably minimal diversity between at least some plaintiffs (who are West Virginia citizens) and all defendants (as none of the defendants reside in or is a citizen of West Virginia." The pharmacies added that any consumer who was allegedly overcharged is a real party-in-interest to the case. The May decision says the West Virginia statutes on which Mr. McGraw relies contain none of the essential requirements for a class action. Mr. McGraw is not designated as a member of the class and he is not required to give notice to overcharged customers, the decision says. "Indeed, the West Virginia Attorney General's role here is more analogous to the role of the EEOC or other regulator when it brings an action on behalf of a large group of employees or a segment of the public," the decision says. "Yet, the Supreme Court has concluded that such a regulator's action is not a class action of the kind defined in Rule 23." Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented. Even though the action was brought under state statutes, it doesn't take away the "essence" of the case, he wrote. "(T)he elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation have not been specifically pleaded," Mr. Gilman wrote. "But I submit that these are subsidiary factors that do not detract from the essence of the action. "They are, in other words, 'bells and whistles' whose absence in the pleadings do not prevent the Attorney General's suit from being considered a class action under CAFA." Mr. Gilman wrote that similar lawsuits filed by Mr. McGraw's outside counsel in other states are undisputed class actions. Mr. McGraw hired two private firms -- Bailey & Glasser and DiTrapano Barrett & DiPiero -- for the case. The two firms have contributed more than $60,000 to Mr. McGraw's campaign fund over the years, including $11,800 for his 2008 race against Republican Dan Greear. Bailey & Glasser brought similar lawsuits in Michigan and Minnesota. The Michigan suits were dismissed by a state judge because the only specific pricing information was obtained by a West Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger. The Minnesota lawsuit, brought on behalf of unions that provide health care for their members, was initially dismissed in November 2009 by former U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum, who had harsh words for the plaintiffs attorneys. Judge Rosenbaum was peeved that the complaint, filed against 13 defendants, only contained specific pricing information about two of them. "(T)his Complaint utterly fails to state a cause of action on any basis. There are no, none, factual allegations touching any defendant other than CVS and Walgreen's," Judge Rosenbaum said Nov. 20, 2009. "There being no facts from which a fact finder could infer any liability concerning (the other defendants), and you asked me to sustain a complaint based upon that. It's not only laughable, it's absolutely reprehensible." A federal magistrate judge is currently deciding if that lawsuit will be remanded to a Minnesota court. YAHOO: August 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman on July 27 reminded investors that they must move the court to be Lead Plaintiff by Aug. 5, 2011, in the class action involving Yahoo's failure to disclose the transfer of Alipay in its April 19, 2011, quarterly earnings announcement. Investors who purchased Yahoo's common stock between the dates of April 19, 2011, and March 13, 2011, may contact Partner Reed R. Kathrein, at Yahoo@hbsslaw.com or by phone at 510-725-3000 for a consultation. Additional information is also available at http://www.hbsslaw.com/yahoo A lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, based upon Yahoo's inexplicable failure in its April 19, 2011, quarterly earnings announcement to reveal that Alibaba, a company in which Yahoo had purchased a 43% share in 2005, had shifted its e-commerce system, Alipay, to another private company without Yahoo's authorization. Yahoo has revealed that it was informed by March 31, 2011, of the transfer of Alipay. Yet, the company did not inform its investors of the change until on or about May 13, 2011. Yahoo stock traded for as much as $18.64 during the class period, and has since traded as low as $13.94. About Hagens Berman Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is one of the top class-action law firms in the nation, with offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Founded in 1993, the firm represents plaintiffs in class actions and multi-state, large-scale litigation that seek to protect the rights of investors, consumers, workers and whistleblowers. ********* 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 * * *