/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110802.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 2, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 151
Headlines
ABBOTT PHARMA: Quebec Court Certifies Biaxin Class Action
CAPELLA EDUCATION: Amended Securities Class Action Suit Pending
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Forced Adoptions May Spur Class Action
CERADYNE INC: Defends Overtime Pay-Related Suit in California
C.R. BARD: Estimates $184M Expense for Hernia Product Claims in 2Q
C.R. BARD: St. Francis' Bid for Re-Hearing of Appeal Pending
DIAMOND RESORTS: Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
DIAMOND RESORTS: Royal Palm Threatens to File Class Action Suit
E.I. DUPONT: Parker Waichman Alonso Files Imprelis Class Action
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action
FIDELITY NATIONAL: To File Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. Units
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 210,800 Little People Builders' Wagons
GOOGLE BOOKS: Objector Brief Disputes Class Action Status
GUARANTEED RATE: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Bikers' Class Action Can Move Forward
HILTON GROUP: Accused of Misleading Hotel Guests in California
HONEYWELL INT'L: Recalls 77,000 Electric Baseboard Thermostats
IBM CORP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in "Health Net" Suit
LENNOX INT'L: California Court Dismisses "Keilholtz" Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Unit Defends Suit in California
MEDCO HEALTH: "Alameda" Suit Remains Pending in California
MEDCO HEALTH: Awaits Ruling in Pending ERISA-Violation Class Suits
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Moose Collision Suit Participants Down
NOBEL LEARNING: Signs MOU to Settle Leeds Merger-Related Suit
OFFICE DEPOT: Defends Suits in Fla. for Securities Act Violations
OMNICARE INC: 3rd Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Pending
OMNICARE INC: Hearing in "Spindler" Suit Set for August 12
PHIL&TEDS USA: Recalls 9,525 Strollers Due to Brake Failure
RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Defends Song-Beverly Act Violation Suits
RADIOSHACK CORP: Review by Calif. Supreme Court Still on Hold
RENT-A-CENTER: Pegs California Settlement Expense at $2.8-Mil.
SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Mass.
SERACARE LIFE: Records $0.9-Mil. Settlement Refund in June 2011
SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Ohio Suit
STIEFEL LABS: Judge Denies Certification of Shareholder Suit
TORONTO COMMUNITY: Still Undecided on Class Action Ruling Appeal
U.S. STEEL: Still Defends Antitrust Suits in Illinois
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Set for Sept. 28
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Suit Hearing Set for Aug. 8
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Androgel(R) Suits
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Cipro(R) Litigation Still Pending
*********
ABBOTT PHARMA: Quebec Court Certifies Biaxin Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Montreal reports that a class action lawsuit against the
makers of Biaxin has been launched in Montreal.
The Superior Court of Quebec authorized the class action suit on
July 28.
The case alleges that Abbott Pharmaceuticals did not reveal all
possible side effects of the antibiotic.
The suit is on behalf of anyone in Quebec who may have suffered
psychiatric problems induced by Biaxin.
Cases of psychosis, hallucinations, depersonalization and suicidal
behavior were reported in adults and children who took the drug.
Damages are estimated in the tens of millions of dollars.
Anyone who has taken Biaxin and suffered similar problems is urged
to contact BGA Barristers & Solicitors LLP at 1-866-523-4222, or
by emailing dbourgoin@bga-law.com
For more information on the class action lawsuit, visit the French
Certification Judgment at: www.bga-law.com/biaxin-autorisation
CAPELLA EDUCATION: Amended Securities Class Action Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capella Education Company is facing, and has yet to respond to, a
consolidated amended complaint filed by plaintiffs in a securities
lawsuit pending in Minnesota, according to the Company's July 26,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
On November 5, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit
captioned Police Pension Fund of Peoria, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capella Education
Company, J. Kevin Gilligan and Lois M. Martin, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint
names the Company and certain senior executives as defendants, and
alleges the Company and the named defendants made false or
misleading public statements about the Company's business and
prospects during the time period from February 16, 2010, through
August 13, 2010, in violation of federal securities laws, and that
these statements artificially inflated the trading price of the
Company's common stock to the detriment of shareholders who
purchased shares during that time. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages for the purported class. Since that time,
substantially similar complaints making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period
were filed with the federal court. Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on April 13, 2011, the
Court appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System as lead plaintiff and Abraham, Fruchter and Twersley, LLP,
as lead counsel. A consolidated amended complaint, captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Capella
Education Company, J. Kevin Gilligan, Lois M. Martin and Amy L.
Ronneberg, was filed on June 27, 2011. The Company has not yet
responded to the consolidated amended complaint.
Discovery in this case has not yet begun. Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the Company says the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available at present, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and,
accordingly, have not accrued any liability associated with this
action.
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Forced Adoptions May Spur Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a Newcastle solicitor is investigating the
possibility of a class action on behalf of several Hunter Valley
women who say their babies were adopted against their will.
In response to concerns raised in Newcastle, Catholic Church
officials apologized for past forced adoption practices and the
Benevolent Society has also said sorry.
Solicitor Catherine Henry says she is now looking at legal avenues
for a group of Newcastle women who say their babies were forcibly
removed several decades ago.
"Clearly my clients and people affected by what has gone on many
years ago would prefer to resolve their differences in an amicable
way but if need be then litigating in the courts will be an option
that will be considered," she said.
Ms. Henry says her fight for justice will be difficult but not
impossible.
She says while many years have passed, a class action or other
legal challenges could be successful.
"There are precedents and similar class actions that have been
run, involving behavior of a similar type that took place a
similarly long time ago," she said.
"While these cases are difficult, whether they're run on an
individual case-by-case basis or on a class action basis, the
cases are not impossible and it just requires fortitude and
strength on the part of the litigants and a desire to see
justice."
CERADYNE INC: Defends Overtime Pay-Related Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ceradyne, Inc., is defending itself against a class action lawsuit
commenced by a former employee over overtime pay in California,
according to the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.
A class action lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2011, in the
California Superior Court for Orange County (Civil Action No. 30-
2011-00465269), in which it was asserted that the representative
plaintiff, a former Ceradyne employee, and the putative class
members, were not provided with meal and rest periods in
accordance with California law, and were not paid overtime at an
appropriate overtime rate. The Company removed the case to the
Federal District Court for the Central District of California in
Santa Ana, Case No. 8:11-cv-00778-CJC-MLG. The Company thereafter
met and conferred related to a motion to dismiss as required by
local rules and Plaintiff agreed to dismiss a significant portion
of the Complaint. In an amended Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged
that certain terminated employees from the fourth quarter of 2009
to the present were not paid the full amount of their overtime on
a bonus paycheck given to them after they were terminated.
Plaintiff also claims he is entitled to additional overtime
because he was required to perform some work during his meal
breaks. The Company disputes such contentions and is aggressively
defending the claims.
While the posture of the case is such that it is indeterminable as
to the outcome at this time, Plaintiff only alleges actual unpaid
overtime of $8,000 for the entire purported class. The Plaintiff
alleges waiting time penalties for this putative class, but such
award is contingent upon a showing that Ceradyne intentionally
withheld pay from the purported Plaintiffs, which is simply not
the case, according to the Company's latest SEC filing.
C.R. BARD: Estimates $184M Expense for Hernia Product Claims in 2Q
------------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc., recorded a $184.3 million expense in the second
quarter of 2011, which recognizes the estimated costs of settling
all Hernia Product Claims, including asserted and unasserted
claims, and costs to administer settlements, according to the
Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
As of July 21, 2011, approximately 1,890 federal and 1,655 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,660
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and four putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, have been filed or asserted against the Company with
respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia
repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product
Claims"). One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates ten
previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits. The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical
monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages,
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (v)
attorneys' fees. Approximately 1,630 of the state lawsuits,
involving individual claims by a substantially equivalent number
of plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products. The Company
voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)
Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005.
On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in federal
courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL court
subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of
the Company in the MDL proceeding. The first MDL trial was
completed in April 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the Company
based on the jury's finding that the Company was not liable for
the plaintiff's damages. The second MDL trial was completed in
August 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff of $1.5
million. On June 30, 2011, the Company announced that it had
reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms
to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims.
Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the Company is
engaging in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and
intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation. Based on these events, the
Company recorded to other (income) expense, net, a charge of
$184.3 million ($180.6 million after tax) in the second quarter of
2011 which recognizes the estimated costs of settling all Hernia
Product Claims, including asserted and unasserted claims, and
costs to administer the settlements. The charge excludes any
costs associated with pending putative class action lawsuits. The
Company cannot give any assurances that the actual costs incurred
with respect to the Hernia Product Claims will not exceed the
amount of the charge together with amounts previously accrued. The
Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted
and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.
As of July 21, 2011, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 190 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's women's health products, principally its
Avaulta(R) line of pelvic floor reconstruction products
(collectively, the "Women's Health Product Claims"). The Women's
Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury
resulting from use of the products. With respect to certain of
these claims, the Company believes that one of its suppliers has
an obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. On
October 12, 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the Women's Health Product Claims involving Avaulta(R)
products pending in federal courts nationwide into an MDL for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Approximately
110 of the Women's Health Product Claims involving Avaulta(R)
products are pending in federal courts and have been or will be
transferred to the MDL, with the remainder of the Women's Health
Product Claims in various state or federal courts. While the
Company intends to vigorously defend the Women's Health Product
Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.
As of July 21, 2011, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 35 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's vena cava filter products. In addition, a
putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
in California state court on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged
to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims"). The putative class action, which has not been
certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive damages;
(iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (iv)
attorneys' fees. While the Company intends to vigorously defend
the Filter Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the
resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.
In most product liability litigations of this nature, including
the Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims and
the Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of
claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the
products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the
absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the Company has
not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the
plaintiffs and their medical conditions, and consequently, is
unable to fully evaluate the claims. The Company expects that it
will receive and review additional information regarding the
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product
Claims, the Filter Product Claims and related matters as these
cases progress.
The Company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well
as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are
or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability
insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers.
In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights
with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has
occurred with respect to certain claims. When this occurs, the
Company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its
insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of
its insurance policies, and accordingly, may record receivables
with respect to amounts due under these policies. Amounts
recovered under the Company's product liability insurance policies
may be less than the stated coverage limits and may not be
adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In
addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay claims or
that coverage will otherwise be available.
In connection with the Hernia Product Claims, the Company is in
dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating to an
aggregate of $25 million of insurance coverage. Regardless of the
outcome of this dispute, the Company's insurance coverage with
respect to the Hernia Product Claims has been depleted.
C.R. BARD: St. Francis' Bid for Re-Hearing of Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Francis Medical Center's request for a re-hearing of its
appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is pending,
according to C. R. Bard, Inc.'s July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.
On February 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative
class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated against the Company and another manufacturer,
Tyco International, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed from
the action. The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis
Medical Center as an additional named plaintiff. The action was
re-named as St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v. C. R. Bard,
Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031, United States
District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern
District) when the court denied Southeast's motion to serve as a
class representative and dismissed Southeast from the lawsuit. In
September 2008, the court granted St. Francis's motion for class
certification and determined the measurement period for any
potential damages. St. Francis alleges that the Company conspired
to exclude competitors from the urological catheter market and
that the Company sought to maintain market share by engaging in
conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. St.
Francis seeks injunctive relief and presented an expert report
that calculates damages of up to approximately $320 million, a
figure that the Company believes is unsupported by the facts. The
Company's expert report establishes that, even assuming a
determination adverse to the Company, the plaintiffs suffered no
damages. In September 2009, the District Court granted the
Company's summary judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all
counts in this action. St. Francis appealed the Court's decision
to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2010, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court. In
October 2010, the Court of Appeals granted St. Francis's request
for a re-hearing of its appeal.
In June 2011, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the decision of
the District Court. St. Francis has again filed a request for a
re-hearing of its appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Company
says it intends to defend this matter vigorously. If, however,
St. Francis is ultimately successful, any damages awarded under
the federal antitrust laws will be subject to statutory trebling
and St. Francis's attorneys would be entitled to an award of
reasonable fees and costs. At this time, it is not possible to
assess the likelihood of an adverse outcome or determine an
estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential damages. The
Company cannot give any assurances that this matter will not have
a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations,
financial condition and/or liquidity.
DIAMOND RESORTS: Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit against an entity of Diamond
Resorts Corporation remains pending, according to the Company's
July 26, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
A class action lawsuit was commenced by Royal Palm Beach &
Flamingo Resort Lessees Association against the Company's entity,
AKGI St. Maarten NV, in St. Maarten, relating to a dispute over
increase in maintenance fees. The Lower Court ruled in favor of
AKGI approving the increase in maintenance fees. The case is
currently on appeal.
DIAMOND RESORTS: Royal Palm Threatens to File Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Palm Whole Owner's Association has threatened to file a
class action lawsuit against Diamond Resorts Palm Management NV in
St. Maarten. The lawsuit arises from a dispute over assessment of
maintenance fees to 23 Whole Owners at Royal Palm.
This action was to be filed in July 2011, according to Diamond
Resorts Corporation's July 26, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
E.I. DUPONT: Parker Waichman Alonso Files Imprelis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, a national law firm representing
clients in lawsuits stemming from defective products and toxic
substances, is investigating reports of damaged and dying trees
allegedly associated with DuPont's Imprelis(TM) herbicide.
Imprelis(TM) is suspected of having caused the deaths of thousands
of mature landscape trees on lawns, golf courses, in cemeteries
and in parks throughout the country. Trees with shallow roots
systems, including willows, poplars and conifers, and especially
Norway spruce and eastern white pines, appear to be the most
vulnerable to alleged Imprelis(TM) side effects.
Problems allegedly associated with Imprelis(TM) include
significant browning of tree tips, as well as drastic loss of
leaves or dropping of needles. Curling and twisting of new growth
has also been observed. An alert issued in June by the Penn State
University Extension Service noted that trees appeared to be
poisoned through the roots. "In some cases, injury does not
progress much further than slight curling and browning of new
growth; however, in other cases complete dieback is observed. In
severe cases, the entire tree turns brown and begins to lose its
needles," the Penn State alert said.
These reports have prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to begin gathering information on the tree deaths
from state officials and DuPont, and the agency is set to begin an
"expedited review' of Imprelis(TM)" in the coming weeks.
According to the EPA, it has received complaints about
Imprelis(TM) from Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Wisconsin and West
Virginia. Incident reports are being collected from those states,
and other states have been notified of the problem, the EPA said.
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP has already joined with its partner
firms in filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of one property
owner who claims to have suffered significant damage and harm to
trees due to Imprelis. The lawsuit, which seeks class action
status on behalf of all who have sustained extensive and permanent
damage to their trees, lawns and gardens following application of
Imprelis, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-01517). The
lawsuit accuses DuPont of, among other things, negligence and
fraud in the marketing of Imprelis(TM). It seeks injunctive
relief barring DuPont from continued sale of Imprelis(TM), as well
as compensatory and other damages, including the cost of replacing
trees allegedly harmed by Imprelis(TM).
According to a report from the Detroit Free Press published on
July 22, 2011, at least four other lawsuits have been filed
against DuPont over Imprelis. This includes one brought by the
Polo Fields Golf & Country Club LLC of Southfield, Michigan (Case
No. 1:11-cv-00624-UNA). This lawsuit and three other Imprelis
complaints have been filed in U.S. District Court in Wilmington,
Delaware, the Free Press said.
DuPont acknowledged receiving reports of tree deaths and damage
possibly associated with Imprelis(TM) in a letter to turf
management professionals dated June 17, 2011, and said it is
investigating the occurrences. The letter states that most cases
have involved the application of a mixture of Imprelis(TM) with
other herbicides, either pre-emergent, post-emergent and/or with a
liquid fertilizer. The company also asserts that reports indicate
there may have been errors in use rates, mixing practices and/or
applications to exposed roots, or the tree. For now, DuPont has
cautioned that Imprelis(TM) not be sprayed near Norway spruce or
white pine, or in places where the product might drift toward such
trees or run off toward their roots.
Jordan L. Chaikin, a partner with Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, says
the June 17 letter from DuPont is only an attempt by the company
to avoid blame for the destruction and damage Imprelis(TM) has
caused.
"Unfortunately, DuPont's blame shifting and failure to adequately
respond to this disaster has done nothing to help property owners
replace damaged trees," Mr. Chaikin said. "Nor has it compensated
lawn care professionals who have incurred financial losses arising
from Imprelis(TM) poisoning."
According to a New York Times report published on July 14, 2011,
reports of dying trees possibly associated with Imprelis started
surfacing around Memorial Day. Imprelis(TM) is now suspected of
causing the death of thousands of shallow-rooted trees, including
willows, poplars and conifers, throughout the country.
Brought to market by DuPont in October 2010, Imprelis is touted as
an environmentally-friendly herbicide and an "innovative solution
to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds."
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP continues to receive reports of
Imprelis(TM) tree damage from around the country, including from
homeowners, golf courses, universities, arboretums, nurseries and
orchards, parks and recreational sites, and cemeteries. Parker
Waichman Alonso LLP is investigating these complaints on behalf of
landscapers, professional gardeners and other lawn care
professionals who have sustained damages as a result of
Imprelis(TM). More information regarding Imprelis(TM) side
effects can be obtained at Parker Waichman Alonso LLP's DuPont
Imprelis(TM) poisoning page at http://www.yourlawyer.com
The page will be updated regularly as more information becomes
available.
For more information regarding the Imprelis(TM) class action
lawsuit and Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, please visit:
http://www.yourlawyer.comor call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).
Contact: Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP
Telephone: (800) LAW-INFO
(800) 529-4636
Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: 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 28
disclosed that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed
against Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited. The firms are
investigating additional potential legal claims against the
officers and Board of Directors of Fairfax Financial during the
period of May 21, 2003, through March 22, 2006.
If you are an affected investor, and you want to learn more about
the lawsuit or join the action, contact Patrick Powers at Powers
Taylor, LLP, toll free (877) 728-9607, via e-mail at
patrick@powerstaylor.com or Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law
Firm, PLLC toll free (877) 397-5991, or via e-mail at
WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com
There is no cost or fee to you.
It has been alleged that during the Class Period, Fairfax
Financial 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, the lawsuit alleges that Fairfax Financial/FFH
defrauded investors by inflating the value of its assets and
concealing its lack of liquidity. This was allegedly accomplished
by accounting for loans as a type of reinsurance contract. Among
other things, it is alleged that the defendants have: (i) failed
to employ adequate risk transfer tests to determine if reinsurance
contracts qualified for "reinsurance" rather than "deposit"
accounting; (ii) maintained ineffective controls while assuring
investors that the company's controls were effective; (iii) used
privately held foreign assets domiciled in jurisdictions with lax
oversight to permit the company to manipulate its investment
income; (iv) failed to properly account for losses in companies
that should have been consolidated with Fairfax Financial; (v)
improperly accounted for intercompany transactions; and (vi) used
"investments" to funnel money to cash strapped subsidiaries.
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.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: To File Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. Units
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., says it intends to file a
motion to dismiss an anticipated amended class action lawsuit
filed against its subsidiaries, according to the Company's
July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
On November 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a class action in the
United States District court, Northern District of California,
Oakland Division titled Vivian Hays, et al. vs. Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who deposited
their exchange funds with LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Service
("LES") and were not able to use them in their contemplated
exchanges due to the alleged illiquidity of LES caused by the
collapse of the auction rate security market in early 2008.
Plaintiffs allege Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation (which was merged into
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company) knew of the problems at
LES and had an obligation of disclosure to exchangers, but did not
disclose and instead recommended exchangers use LES in order to
fund prior exchangers' transactions with money from new
exchangers. Plaintiffs have sued the Company's subsidiaries
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
constructive fraud and aiding and abetting LES. Plaintiffs ask
for compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest and
reasonable attorney's fees.
The Company says it has employed counsel and intends to vigorously
defend the action. The case did not include a statement as to the
amount of damages demanded, but instead included a demand for
damages in an amount to be proved at trial. Due to the early
stage of this case, it is not possible to make meaningful
estimates, if any, of the amount or range of loss that could
result from this case at this time. The case was transferred on
the Company's motion to a Multi District Litigation proceeding in
South Carolina and a status conference was held on April 22, 2011.
This case was stayed until a decision was made on motions pending
in a similar class action against an unrelated party. The Court
in that case ruled on June 15, 2011, on the motion to dismiss the
complaint filed by the unrelated party and dismissed the
complaint. The plaintiffs in the case against Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Company and Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
intend to file an amended complaint on August 15, 2011. The
Company says it is prepared to file a motion to dismiss the action
against its subsidiaries on September 12, 2011.
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 210,800 Little People Builders' Wagons
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, New York, announced
a voluntary recall of about 208,000 units of Little People(R)
Builders' Load 'n Go Wagon in the United States of America and
2,800 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The back of the wagon's plastic handle has molded-in
reinforcement. This design adds stiffness and facilitates
children gripping the handle. The handle poses a laceration
hazard if a child falls on it.
CPSC and Fisher-Price are aware of seven reports of injuries,
including five reports of children requiring surgical glue or
stitches.
This recall involves the Fisher Price's Little People(R) Builders'
Load 'n Go Wagon model number P8977. The product includes a red
wagon with a yellow handle, multi-colored plastic blocks and a dog
figure. The model number is located on the bottom of the wagon.
"Little People(R) Builders" is found on a label on the side of the
wagon and "Fisher Price" is embossed on the handle. Wagons with
green handles are not included in this recall. Picture of the
recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11287.html
The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at mass
merchandise retail stores nationwide from June 2009 through July
2011 for about $25.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled wagons away from
children and contact Fisher-Price for instructions on how to
obtain a free repair kit. For additional information, contact
Fisher-Price at (800) 432-5437 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.service.mattel.com/
GOOGLE BOOKS: Objector Brief Disputes Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that a
week after judge Denny Chin gave the parties in the Google Books
litigation until September 15th to come back with a revised
settlement, an objector brief is asking the court to reject the
class-action status of the suit, based on the Supreme Court's
recent ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al.
In the Wal-Mart case, the court ruled that the class (women) was
too broad to support 1.5 million underlying, individual fact-based
claims of employment discrimination. In their brief filed with
the court last week, attorneys Robert Kunstadt and Illaria
Maggione, assert that the multitude of fact-based assessments
necessary to determine fair use in the Google case is similarly
too broad.
"In view of Wal-Mart, it would be inappropriate for the Court to
rule upon fair use fact-issues in a class-action setting,"
Mr. Kusntadt and Ms. Maggione argue. "Assessment of fair use
varies depending on whether a literary work is fiction or factual;
the length of the particular work compared to the length of the
challenged use; and the economic impact of the challenged use upon
the market for that particular work. Those fact issues may not be
determined in the abstract, ignoring the variations across
disparate works by a multitude of class authors."
Mr. Kunstadt and Ms. Maggione's brief notes that the Google class
action was never "certified as a class action for substantive
purposes," only for settlement purposes. Thus, if the parties
return to litigation, the objectors suggest, Wal-Mart precludes
Chin from deciding the case based on whether Google's display of
snippets is fair use, as the judge suggested he might do at the
status conference.
Wal-mart would likely have no bearing on the kind of narrow "opt-
in" settlement now reportedly under discussion, depending on the
details of a revised deal, and New York Law School's James
Grimmelmann told PW he doesn't think Mr. Kunstadt and Ms.
Maggione's heads up to Judge Chin will have an impact on any
litigation, either. "It isn't as if Chin isn't aware of Wal-
Mart," he noted. If the parties do return to litigation in the
coming weeks, class issues are going to come up, he added, but not
because Wal-Mart has now made "fair use" too broad for class
action status. "If that was the case," Mr. Grimmelmann explained
"it means there could never be any copyright class action suits."
GUARANTEED RATE: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 2011, in San Diego, California, a class action lawsuit
was filed by the California employment lawyers at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik against Guaranteed Rate, Inc., alleging that
the mortgage lender has violated the rights of loan officers under
the California Labor Code. The lawsuit against Guaranteed Rate
for Labor Code violations was filed in San Diego Superior Court,
entitled North v. Guaranteed Rate Inc., Case No. 37-2011-00094974.
The class action complaint alleges that the mortgage lender
unlawfully paid loan officers below minimum wage, failed to
compensate them for overtime hours worked and unjustly deducted
expenses from previously earned wages, in violation of state wage
and hour laws. The complaint asserts that Guaranteed Rate
incorrectly and intentionally classified loan officers as "outside
salespeople," making them exempt from some minimum wage and
overtime regulations. However, these outside sales employees
claim to have spent more than 50% of their working time in their
homes, which the employees argue is considered the employer's
places of business for purposes of the outside sales exemption
from minimum and overtime wage laws.
The Guaranteed Rate Loan Officer class action lawsuit further
alleges that the mortgage lender intentionally misclassified the
loan officers as outside salespeople in order to avoid overtime
and minimum wage requirements in violation of California
employment laws. Specifically, the complaint states, the sales
plaintiff was paid a "percentage of the profit obtained from the
sale of the loan" and as a result "there were pay periods during
which the Plaintiff received less than minimum wage or no
compensation." This compensation structure caused the loan
officers to often work more than 8 hours per day and/or 5 days per
week, which was allegedly known by the Mortgage Loan Company.
According to California overtime laws, employers are required to
pay employees overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess
of eight hours in a single workday or forty hours in a workweek.
The loan officer class action against Guaranteed Rate further
alleges violations for unlawful deductions of earned wages in the
form of "loan processing rush fees, marketing charges, loan
appraisal overages and other related chargebacks on loans which
the [loan officers] had already earned compensation." According
to the California Labor Code, it is unlawful for an employer to
take back any portion of an employee's wages previously paid to
said employee.
For more information on the lawsuit, visit the Guaranteed Rate
Loan Officer class action website or call (866) 771-7099.
With its main employment law office located in San Diego County,
the California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik have a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving wages and hours,
overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and
other types of illegal workplace conduct.
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Bikers' Class Action Can Move Forward
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that four bikers
can move forward with a class action that claims Harley Davidson
manufactured defective motorcycles that burn drivers' legs, a
federal judge ruled.
Phillip Johnson, Jimmy Aldridge, Randy Vandermolen and Matthew
Weyuker alleged that since 1999, Twin Cam engines in Harley
motorcycles were prone to overheating and caused burn injuries to
their legs. Transmissions on models manufactured since 2006 also
came with defective speed transmissions, the bikers claimed.
Harley Davidson asked the Eastern District of California court to
throw out the claims under state law.
But while U.S. District Judge John Mendez granted the motion to
dismiss in part, he sided with the bikers on their claims for
fraudulent and unfair business practices, violations of Consumers
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and unjust enrichment.
"Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that the engine defect is material
because a reasonable consumer would change his behavior if he knew
that the engine heat can cause burns and that the transmission
would require numerous repairs or replacements," Judge Mendez
wrote.
"Plaintiffs claim that defendant knew of the excessive engine heat
defect as early as 1999 and of the transmission defect as early as
2006," the July 21 decision states. "Plaintiffs discovered the
excessive heat and transmission defects after purchasing the
motorcycles. Since defendant was in a superior position to know
of its defective engines, plaintiffs properly allege that
defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to
plaintiffs."
Judge Mendez directed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to
"provide more specificity concerning when they discovered the
purported defects" because it was "unclear" whether or not the
claims were time-barred.
The judge also granted Harley Davidson's motion to dismiss on
unlawful business practices with leave to amend.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Lyle Cook of Kershaw, Cutter and
Ratinoff, applauded the "victory" for his clients.
"Harley Davidson was trying to say that the claims under
California law hadn't been properly pled but the court disagreed
with the main thrust of their motion," Mr. Cook told Courthouse
News.
"With respect to the remainder of the court's order, we intend to
amend the complaint consistent with the court's direction," he
added.
A copy of the Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Johnson, et al. v. Harley-
Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-CV-02443
(E.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/28/Harley.pdf
HILTON GROUP: Accused of Misleading Hotel Guests in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Harmon, individually and on behalf of a CLASS of similarly
situated consumers, v. Hilton Group, PLC; Hilton International
Co.; Hilton Hotels Corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-03677 (N.D.
Calif., July 27, 2011) is brought on behalf of all consumers
subjected to Hilton's scheme of delivering newspapers to hotel
guests' doors, which they reasonably believed and understood to be
without charge.
The federal class action asserts that Hilton charges guests 75
cents for a newspaper delivered to the room that they didn't ask
for, "reasonably believe" is free, and that Hilton "discloses" the
charge in a tiny font on a teeny receipt hidden inside the guest's
"room card," notes Courthouse News Service.
Mr. Harmon alleges that the Defendants intentionally, recklessly,
and negligently concealed, suppressed, and misled consumers about
the scheme.
The Plaintiff also alleges that the scheme is a matter of serious
environmental concern and a cause of harm to residents of
California and the United States of America because the newspaper
and periodical production industry is among the highest producers
of greenhouse gases in the country, and deforestation caused by
paper production is a matter of concern and worry worldwide.
Mr. Harmon is a resident of Sacramento County, California.
Hilton, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies own and operate
hotels throughout California and the United States.
A copy of the Complaint in Harmon v. Hilton Group, Plc, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-03677 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/28/Hilton.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
Clifford L. Carter, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 924-3100
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com
kwolden@justice4you.com
ccarter@justice4you.com
- and -
F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq.
Douglas A. Dellaccio, Esq.
CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
E-mail: jtapley@cwcd.com
ddellaccio@cwcd.com
rlutz@cwcd.com
HONEYWELL INT'L: Recalls 77,000 Electric Baseboard Thermostats
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Honeywell International Inc., of Morris Township, New Jersey,
announced a voluntary recall of about 77,000 units of electric
baseboard and fan heater thermostats. Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
The thermostats can overheat, causing them to melt and smoke.
This poses a burn hazard to the consumer.
Honeywell has received 16 reports of thermostats melting. There
have been no reports of injuries.
The recalled thermostats are rectangular, white, programmable
thermostats used to control electric baseboard and fan heaters.
"Honeywell" or "Cadet" is printed on the front of the thermostats
that come in various sizes. The model number and four-digit date
code are printed on a label inside the front cover of the
thermostat. The model numbers listed below are included in this
recall. Only models with date codes beginning with 00, 01, 02,
03, 04, 05 or 06 are included.
Brand Name Model Number
---------- ------------
Honeywell CT1950A1003
Honeywell CT1950B1002
Honeywell CT1957A1008
CADET T4700B1030
CADET T4700A1040
Honeywell T4700B1014
Honeywell T4700A1016
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11289.html
The recalled products were manufactured in Singapore and sold at
home improvement stores, HVAC and electrical stores, and
contractors from January 2000 to December 2007 for between $80 and
$300.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled thermostats
by setting the thermostats to 45 degrees or turning them off.
Only models with a "B" in the model number have an off switch.
Consumers should contact Honeywell for a free replacement
installed by Honeywell. For additional information, contact
Honeywell toll-free at (888) 235-7363 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.yourhome.honeywell.com/T4700/
IBM CORP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in "Health Net" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuit against
International Business Machines Corporation filed an amended
consolidated complaint last month, according to the Company's July
26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
The Company was named as a co-defendant in numerous purported
class actions filed on and after March 18, 2011, in federal and
state courts in California in connection with an information
technology outsourcing agreement between Health Net, Inc. and IBM.
The matters were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on July 15, 2011. The consolidated
complaint alleges that the company violated the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act in connection with hard
drives that are unaccounted for at one of Health Net's data
centers in California; plaintiffs have been notified by Health Net
that certain of their personal information is believed to be
contained on those hard drives. Plaintiffs seek damages, as well
as injunctive and declaratory relief. IBM has also received a
request for information regarding this matter from the California
Attorney General.
LENNOX INT'L: California Court Dismisses "Keilholtz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the "Keilholtz" lawsuit against Lennox International
Inc., et al., and approved the parties' settlement, according to
the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.
On February 6, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California styled Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products, Lennox
Industries and Lennox International, Inc. The lawsuit, which
involved no personal injury claims, alleged that certain of the
Company's single-pane, glass-front, gas fireplaces are hazardous
and that consumers were not adequately warned, and seeks economic
damages. On February 16, 2010, the court issued an order
certifying a nationwide class of plaintiffs.
On August 23, 2010, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a
binding Memorandum of Understanding in this case and reached
tentative terms for settlement of the case. At the parties'
request, the court stayed the lawsuit shortly after the MOU was
signed. On June 10, 2011, the litigation of this matter concluded
when the court issued its Order Granting Final Approval of Class
Settlement; Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal.
The Company had $9.4 million in expenses to date related to this
matter and made minor adjustments to the reserve in the second
quarter of 2011.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Unit Defends Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., continues to
defend a class action lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
On September 3, 2009, a former store manager and an assistant
store manager filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
("LLI"), in the Superior Court of California in and for the County
of Alameda. The Plaintiffs allege that with regard to certain
groups of current and former employees in LLI's California stores,
LLI violated California law by failing to calculate and pay
overtime wages properly, provide meal breaks, compensate for
unused vacation time, reimburse for certain expenses and maintain
required employment records. The Plaintiffs also claim that LLI
did not calculate and pay overtime wages properly for certain of
LLI's non-exempt employees, both in and out of California, in
violation of federal law. In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, certain statutory penalties, costs,
attorney's fees and injunctive relief. LLI removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. In an order dated March 2, 2011, the court denied
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification of non-exempt employees throughout the country.
LLI intends to continue to defend the claims in this lawsuit
vigorously. While there is a reasonable possibility that a
material loss may be incurred, the Company cannot estimate the
loss or range of loss, if any, to the Company at this time.
MEDCO HEALTH: "Alameda" Suit Remains Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Alameda Drug Company, Inc.,
et al. against Medco Health Solutions, Inc., remains pending in
California, according to the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 25, 2011.
In January 2004, a lawsuit captioned Alameda Drug Company, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed against
the Company and Merck & Co., Inc. in the Superior Court of
California. The plaintiffs, which seek to represent a class of
all California pharmacies that had contracted with the Company and
that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck,
allege, among other things, that since the expiration of a 1995
consent injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, if not earlier, the Company
failed to maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the consent
injunction), and that the Company and Merck had failed to prevent
nonpublic information received from competitors of Merck and the
Company from being disclosed to each other. The plaintiffs
further allege that, as a result of these alleged practices, the
Company had been able to increase its market share and
artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the retail
pharmacy class members, and that the prices of prescription drugs
from Merck and other pharmaceutical manufacturers that do business
with the Company had been fixed and raised above competitive
levels. The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California
antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business
practices. The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully
obtained profits and injunctive relief. In the complaint, the
plaintiffs further allege, among other things, that the Company
acted as a purchasing agent for its plan sponsor customers,
resulting in a system that serves to suppress competition.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
MEDCO HEALTH: Awaits Ruling in Pending ERISA-Violation Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a court order dismissing
one of its fiduciary claims, according to the Company's July 26,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 25, 2011.
In December 1997, a lawsuit captioned Gruer v. Merck-Medco Managed
Care, L.L.C. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Merck & Co., Inc. and the Company.
The lawsuit alleged that the Company should be treated as a
"fiduciary" under the provisions of ERISA (the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974) and that the Company had breached
fiduciary obligations under ERISA in a variety of ways. After the
Gruer case was filed, a number of other cases were filed in the
same Court asserting similar claims. In December 2002, Merck and
the Company agreed to settle the Gruer series of lawsuits on a
class action basis for $42.5 million, and agreed to certain
business practice changes, to avoid the significant cost and
distraction of protracted litigation. In September 2003, the
Company paid $38.3 million to an escrow account, representing the
Company's portion, or 90%, of the proposed settlement. After many
years of additional court proceedings, including appeals, the
settlement became final in 2010 and in December 2010, the final
settlement funds were distributed to the eligible class member
plans.
The plaintiffs in two of the remaining actions in the Gruer series
of cases, Blumenthal v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., et al.,
and United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 1529 and
Employers Health and Welfare Plan Trust v. Medco Health Solutions,
Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc., elected to opt out of the settlement.
In June 2010, the Company filed for summary judgment against both
of these plaintiffs.
In June 2011, the Court issued its opinion dismissing several of
the plaintiffs' fiduciary claims while letting others survive
pending further discovery. Plaintiff, United Food and Commercial
Workers Local Union No. 1529 and Employers Health and Welfare Plan
Trust, subsequently filed a motion with the Court asking it to
reconsider its dismissal of one of the fiduciary claims.
The Company does not believe that it is a fiduciary under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (except in those
instances in which it has expressly contracted to act as a
fiduciary for limited purposes), and believes that its business
practices comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
consolidated antitrust lawsuit known as In re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation, in Pennsylvania, according to the
Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 25, 2011.
In August 2003, a lawsuit captioned Brady Enterprises, Inc., et
al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Merck & Co., Inc. and the Company. The plaintiffs, who seek to
represent a national class of retail pharmacies that had
contracted with the Company, allege that the Company has conspired
with, acted as the common agent for, and used the combined
bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain competition in the
market for the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs. The
plaintiffs allege that, through the alleged conspiracy, the
Company has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct,
including, among other things, setting artificially low
reimbursement rates to such pharmacies. The plaintiffs assert
claims for violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages
and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is currently pending before the Multidistrict
Litigation Court.
In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against
Merck and the Company. In their Second Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs allege that Merck and the Company engaged in price
fixing and other unlawful concerted actions with others, including
other pharmacy benefit managements (PBMs), to restrain trade in
the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs to customers of
retail pharmacies who participate in programs or plans that pay
for all or part of the drugs dispensed, and conspired with, acted
as the common agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of
plan sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the
dispensing and sale of prescription drugs. The plaintiffs allege
that, through such concerted action, Merck and the Company engaged
in various forms of anticompetitive conduct, including, among
other things, setting reimbursement rates to such pharmacies at
unreasonably low levels. The plaintiffs assert claims for
violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages and
injunctive relief. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification
has been granted, but this matter has been consolidated with other
actions where class certification remains an open issue.
In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed
against the Company and Merck in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all pharmacies and pharmacists that had contracted with
the Company and California pharmacies that had indirectly
purchased prescription drugs from Merck and make factual
allegations similar to those in the Alameda Drug Company action.
The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices. The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained
profits and injunctive relief.
In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against PBMs, including
North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's Medical Center before a single
federal judge. The motion was granted in August 2006. These
actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
consolidated action is known as In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers
Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in certain actions is currently pending before the
Multidistrict Litigation Court.
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Moose Collision Suit Participants Down
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the lawyer leading a class action lawsuit
against the Newfoundland and Labrador government over moose-
vehicle collisions says the number of participants has been
strategically cut.
Ches Crosbie said 75 people are eligible to seek compensation
through the suit, which was certified earlier this year.
Mr. Crosbie said 20 times as many people could have signed on.
Mr. Crosbie said the judge for the case told him the case could be
broadened to include anyone who has ever struck a moose, which
could have resulted in 1,500 people being eligible to seek
compensation.
"It's an olive branch of sorts," Mr. Crosbie said on July 27.
"[It's] a basis for them to talk to us, which would cost them less
than if we went with the suggestion the judge made that maybe
there is a basis for having a wider class of 1,500," said
Mr. Crosbie.
Officials with the Newfoundland and Labrador government said a
response to the claim will come by the end of the summer.
Mr. Crosbie said the amount of compensation being sought will be
finalized in the next few weeks. He suggested the sum could be in
the tens of millions of dollars.
NOBEL LEARNING: Signs MOU to Settle Leeds Merger-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nobel Learning Communities, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a putative class action lawsuit over its
proposed merger with an affiliate of Leeds Equity Partners V,
L.P., according to the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Nobel Learning Communities, Inc., entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of May 17, 2011, with Academic
Acquisition Corp. ("Parent") and Academic Merger Sub, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Academic is an affiliate of
Leeds Equity Partners V, L.P. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
each share of the Company's common stock and Series D convertible
preferred stock will be converted into the right to receive $11.75
and $1.88 in cash, respectively, and the Company will become a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.
On May 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit ("Stockholder
Litigation") was brought against the Company, the members of the
Board, Parent, Merger Sub, and Leeds, challenging the proposed
merger, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia in the First
Judicial District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of
the Company's stockholders. On July 25, 2011, counsel for the
parties entered into a memorandum of understanding, in which they
agreed on the terms of a settlement of the Stockholder Litigation.
The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things,
confirmatory discovery, the execution of an appropriate
stipulation of settlement, consummation of the merger and final
approval of the proposed settlement by the court.
Pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the
Company has agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the merger. In addition, in connection with the
settlement and as provided in the Memorandum of Understanding, the
parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement, and
plaintiffs will release defendants from any and all liability.
The Company says there can be no assurance that the merger will be
consummated, that the parties ultimately will enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties enter into such stipulation. In
such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated. The settlement
will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that the
Company's stockholders are entitled to receive in the merger.
The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the Stockholder Litigation and specifically deny
that any breach of fiduciary duty occurred, or that any further
disclosure is required to supplement the definitive proxy
statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.
However, to avoid the risk that the Stockholder Litigation may
delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the
merger, to minimize the expense of defending such actions, and to
provide additional information to the Company's stockholders at a
time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the special
meeting or the merger, the defendants have agreed to the terms of
the proposed settlement. The parties further considered it
desirable that the Stockholder Litigation be settled to avoid the
expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation and to fully and finally resolve the settled claims.
Plaintiff in the Stockholder Litigation has agreed to stay the
Stockholder Litigation pending final approval by the court of the
settlement, and to dismiss the Stockholder Litigation with
prejudice upon final approval by the court of the settlement of
the Stockholder Litigation.
OFFICE DEPOT: Defends Suits in Fla. for Securities Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc., is defending itself against lawsuits arising
from its April 2011 restatement of certain financial results,
according to the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 25, 2011.
On April 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain current and former executive
officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seeking damages, fees, costs and equitable relief. The
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida captioned as Climo v. Office Depot,
Inc, Steve Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian. On
June 17, 2011, a derivative lawsuit was filed against certain
current and former executive officers and the company, generally
alleging that the officers breached their fiduciary duties. The
derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida captioned as Long v. Steve
Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian, defendants, and
Office Depot, Inc., nominal defendant. The allegations made in
these lawsuits primarily relate to the Company's previous
financial disclosures and reports regarding certain tax losses.
On March 31, 2011, Office Depot announced that the Internal
Revenue Service had denied the Company's claim to carry back
certain tax losses to prior tax years under economic stimulus-
based tax legislation enacted in 2009. As a result, on April 6,
2011, the company restated its financial results to revise the
accounting treatment regarding its original tax position. The
periods covered by the restatement are the fiscal year ended
December 25, 2010, and each of the quarters ended June 26, 2010,
and September 25, 2010.
The Company says it is involved in litigation arising in the
normal course of its business. While, from time to time, claims
are asserted that make demands for a large sum of money
(including, from time to time, actions which are asserted to be
maintainable as class action suits), the Company does not believe
that contingent liabilities related to these matters, either
individually or in the aggregate, will materially affect its
financial position, results of its operations or cash flows.
OMNICARE INC: 3rd Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' third amended complaint in a consolidated class action
lawsuit against Omnicare, Inc., is pending in Kentucky, according
to the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.
In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled
Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension &
Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005, through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought their shares in the Company's public offering in
December 2005. The complaint contained claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought,
among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its
earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements)
by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper
revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and
inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual
dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely
record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the court
dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
generally affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing
plaintiff's claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. However, the
appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.
On December 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion in the district
court requesting permission to file a third amended complaint.
On February 4, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
sole remaining claim in plaintiff's second amended complaint. On
July 14, 2011, the court granted both motions and deemed the third
amended complaint filed. This complaint asserts a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all
purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public
offering. The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration
statement contained false and misleading statements regarding
Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation
of the federal anti-kickback law in connection with three of
Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its
suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services.
The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.
OMNICARE INC: Hearing in "Spindler" Suit Set for August 12
----------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit
commenced by Spindler, et al., is set to be heard on August 12,
2011, according to the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.
On April 2, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Spindler, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Corp., Omnicare, Inc. and
Does 1-10, Case No. CV-10-1414, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, against Johnson & Johnson, the Company and
certain unnamed defendants asserting violations of federal
antitrust law and California unfair competition law arising out of
certain arrangements between J&J and the Company. Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the Company violated these laws
by entering into agreements with J&J to promote J&J products. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 6, 2010. On January 21, 2011, the court dismissed the
amended complaint and granted permission to file a new amended
complaint, which was filed in February 2011. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in March 2011. The
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is scheduled to be
heard on August 12, 2011.
The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself if pursued.
PHIL&TEDS USA: Recalls 9,525 Strollers Due to Brake Failure
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with phil&teds USA Inc., of Fort Collins, Colorado,
announced a voluntary recall of (i) 7,400 units of Explorer
strollers in the United States of America, and 1,900 units in
Canada, and (ii) 160 units of Hammerhead strollers in the U.S. and
65 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The brake mechanism on the strollers can fail, posing an injury
hazard.
Eight incidents have been reported globally; none in North
America. No injuries were reported.
The recalled strollers have metal frames and were sold as single
strollers or with a doubles kit to make them double strollers.
The Explorer has three wheels and the Hammerhead has four. Both
have a cloth seat and canopy. Explorer strollers were sold in the
following colors: black, apple green, navy, red/black and apple
green/black. Hammerhead strollers were sold in black only. The
phil&teds logo is located on the crotch piece of the harness on
both models. The strollers have the text "phil&teds model EX
explorer" or "phil&teds model HH hammerhead" printed on a sticker
on the rear axle bar. The serial numbers run consecutively with
the month and year followed by the unit number. Affected serial
numbers: 0610/0001 to 0111/4788 (June 2010, unit #1, to January
2011, unit #4788). This information can be found on a sticker
attached to the inside of the left hand hinge when viewing the
stroller from behind. Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11288.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
at philandteds.com, pishposhbaby.com, and albeebaby.com; and at
Babies R Us and specialty juvenile retailers in the United States
and Canada from August 2010 through June 2011 for between $475 and
$500.
Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
phil&teds to arrange to receive an upgraded brake assembly.
Explorer owners will receive a new frame fitted with an upgraded
brake assembly. Consumers can perform an in-home swap out of the
affected frame. Hammerhead owners will receive a pre-paid return
shipping container in order to return the stroller to phil&teds
where the brake assembly will be replaced and the stroller
returned. For additional information in the U.S. and Canada,
contact phil&teds USA toll free at (855) 652-9019 between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time, Monday through Friday, or visit
the company's Web site at http://www.philandteds.com/support/
RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Defends Song-Beverly Act Violation Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, according
to the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.
In November 2010, RadioShack received the first of four putative
class action lawsuits in California (Sosinov v. RadioShack, Los
Angeles Superior Court; Bitter v. RadioShack, Federal District
Court, Central District of California; Moreno v. RadioShack,
Federal District Court, Southern District of California; and Grant
v. RadioShack, San Francisco Superior Court), seeking damages
under California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. Plaintiffs claim
that under one section of the Act, retailers such as RadioShack
are prohibited from recording certain personal identification
information regarding their customers while processing credit card
transactions unless certain statutory exceptions are applicable.
The Act states that any person who violates this section shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars
($250) for the first violation and one thousand dollars ($1,000)
for each subsequent violation. In each matter, plaintiffs allege
that RadioShack violated the Act by asking them for personal
identification information and then recording it.
The Company says these matters are in an early stage and discovery
has just begun. The Company is defending these matters, but is
unable to determine their likely outcome.
RADIOSHACK CORP: Review by Calif. Supreme Court Still on Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------
Review of class decertification reversal petitioned by RadioShack
Corporation remains on hold at the California Supreme Court,
according to the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.
On October 10, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
the Company's second Motion for Class Decertification in the class
action lawsuit captioned Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation.
Plaintiffs' claims that the Company violated California's wage and
hour laws relating to meal periods were originally certified as a
class action on February 8, 2006. The Company's first Motion for
Decertification of the class was denied on August 29, 2007. After
a California Appellate Court's favorable decision in the similar
case of Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the
Company again sought class decertification. Based on the
California Appellate Court's decision in Brinker, the trial court
granted the Company's second motion. The plaintiffs in Brookler
have appealed this ruling. Due to the unsettled nature of
California state law regarding the employers' standard of
liability for meal periods, the Company and the Brookler
plaintiffs requested that the California appellate court stay its
ruling on the plaintiffs' appeal of the class decertification
ruling, pending the California Supreme Court's decision in
Brinker. The appellate court denied this joint motion and then
heard oral arguments for this matter on August 5, 2010. On
August 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decertification of the class, and the Company's Petition for
Rehearing was denied on September 14, 2010. On September 28,
2010, the Company filed a Petition for Review with the California
Supreme Court, which granted review and placed the matter on hold
pending its decision in the Brinker matter.
The Company says outcome of this action is uncertain and the
ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations, and cash
flows in the period in which any such resolution is recorded.
RENT-A-CENTER: Pegs California Settlement Expense at $2.8-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc., recorded a $2.8 million pre-tax litigation
expense during the first quarter of 2011 in connection with the
settlement of certain putative class actions pending in California
alleging various claims, including violations of California wage
and hour laws. For the six months ended June 30, 2011, this pre-
tax litigation expense of $2.8 million reduced net earnings per
diluted share by approximately $0.03.
No further details are available in the Company's July 26, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP on July 25 disclosed that a
lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Satcon Technology Corp.
between March 4, 2010, and July 5, 2011, inclusive. Also included
are those who purchased shares in the Secondary Offering on or
around October 21, 2010.
The complaint charges Satcon and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business practices and financial results. Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following
adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing a decrease in
sales of its inverter systems; (ii) that the Company's European
market was performing below internal expectations due to changes
in government incentives for solar energy; (iii) that the Company
failed to properly account for its inventory; and (iv) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
September 19, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by
the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead
plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could
affect the overall recovery for class members.
While Izard Nobel LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the
defendants, to view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class
action or for more information about the case, and your rights,
visit: http://www.izardnobel.com/satcon/or contact Izard Nobel
LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
For more information about class action cases in general, please
visit http://www.izardnobel.com
SERACARE LIFE: Records $0.9-Mil. Settlement Refund in June 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc., recorded a $0.9 million refund in
June 2011 because funds paid into an escrow to cover settlement
payments and legal expenses were not entirely used, according to
the Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.
On March 22, 2006, the Company filed voluntary petitions for
relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California.
The Company emerged from bankruptcy protection under the Joint
Plan of Reorganization which was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court
on February 21, 2007, and after each of the conditions precedent
to the consummation was satisfied or waived, became effective
May 17, 2007. As part of the Joint Plan of Reorganization, on
September 4, 2007, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California approved the motion for final
settlement of the federal class actions and entered an order of
settlement and final judgment dismissing with prejudice the
claims. There were no objections to the final settlement.
Shareholders owning a nonmaterial number of shares opted out of
the final settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, $4.4 million
was paid into an escrow for the purpose of covering settlement
payments and legal expenses for certain directors and officers who
served at the Company in fiscal 2005.
During the nine months ended June 30, 2011, the Company was
informed that the escrow funds were not entirely used and the
Company was refunded $0.9 million, which included interest.
SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Ohio Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma-Aldrich Corporation is awaiting court approval of its
agreement to settle a class action lawsuit arising from a 2003
explosion in its facility, according to the Company's July 26,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
A class action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of the
Company in the Montgomery County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas
related to a 2003 explosion in a column at the Company's Isotec
facility in Miamisburg, Ohio. The case was partially certified as
a class action in 2005, and proceedings, including two jury trials
and an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, continued into 2011. The
parties have reached a settlement of the entire case in an amount
which is not material to the Company's consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity. The settlement
agreement was filed with the Court on June 24, 2011. The
settlement still must be approved by the Court.
The Company believes its reserves and insurance are sufficient to
provide for claims outstanding at June 30, 2011. While the
outcome of the current claims cannot be predicted with certainty,
the possible outcome of the claims is reviewed at least quarterly
and reserves adjusted as deemed appropriate based on these
reviews. Based on current information available, the Company
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. Future
claims related to the use of these categories of products may not
be covered in full by the Company's insurance program.
STIEFEL LABS: Judge Denies Certification of Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for South Florida Business Journal,
reports that stockholders who allege Stiefel Laboratories lied
about the value of their portfolio would be better off filing
individual lawsuits, rather than a class action, a federal judge
in Miami has ruled.
U.S. District Judge James King on July 21 denied class
certification for a $226 million dispute over the value of Stiefel
stock.
Judge King ruled that each stockholder can afford to pay his or
her own attorney.
"These claims, unlike many others that provide the basis for class
action treatment, involve substantial monetary damages," the judge
wrote in his 33-page opinion. "This amount . . . will likely
ensure both that the individual plaintiffs obtain adequate
representation, and also permit many of the proposed class members
to proceed in federal court on the basis of diversity, if they so
desire."
Judge King also wrote that individuals may have unique reasons for
selling their shares in the chaos of financial meltdown in 2008,
and that each person should be required to prove that they relied
on value information the company provided.
The lawsuit alleges Stiefel and its executives lied to employees
about the value of the company's stock in a planned conspiracy to
derive more benefit from the 2009 sale of the company to
GlaxoSmithKline for $2.9 billion.
According to the suit, a 2008 valuation sent to employees said the
stock was $16,469 a share, but directors, including former
Chairman and CEO Charles Stiefel, knew or should have known the
stock was actually worth about $60,000 a share.
Representing the plaintiffs are Fort Lauderdale-based Ruden
McCloskybizWatch and Miami-based Segall Gordich. Miami-based
Greenberg TraurigbizWatch and Fort Lauderdale-based Walton Lantaff
Schroeder & CarsonbizWatch represent the defendants.
Coral Gables-based Stiefel, the world's largest maker of
pharmaceutical skin care products, was a pioneer in the use of
benzoyl peroxide to treat acne.
TORONTO COMMUNITY: Still Undecided on Class Action Ruling Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Star reports that Toronto Community Housing remains
undecided on whether to appeal a judge's ruling that gives the go-
ahead to an C$80 million class action suit brought by tenants in
the 200 Wellesley St. fire.
Last week, the housing agency filed a notice in court regarding
the ruling, but a TCHC spokesperson said it was only a procedural
step, adding no final decision on an appeal has been made.
The Sept. 24 fire broke out after a cigarette ignited mountains of
paper and other items in a unit belonging to an individual that
residents called a hoarder.
U.S. STEEL: Still Defends Antitrust Suits in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including United States Steel
Corporation, conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict
the domestic production of raw steel and thereby to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price of steel products in the United
States. The cases are filed as class actions and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.
The Company says it is vigorously defending these lawsuits and
does not believe that it has any liability regarding these
matters.
No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Set for Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on a motion for class certification in the lawsuit
filed against a subsidiary of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is
scheduled for September 28, 2011, according to the Company's
July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
purported class action complaint against the Company alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. The lawsuit is captioned Medical West
Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the
County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257).
In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting
Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant. The
amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile
advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper,
toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged
unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile
advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA
and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The TCPA allows recovery of minimum statutory damages of $500 per
violation, which can be trebled if the violations are found to be
willful. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on
behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third
parties. In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended
complaint, denying the allegations. In November 2009, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to expand the class of plaintiffs from
individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of express permission
or an established business relationship to "All persons who on or
after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent
telephone facsimile messages advertising pharmaceutical drugs and
products by or on behalf of Defendant."
In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class
of plaintiffs. On November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition with
the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), asking the FCC to
clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring "opt-out"
language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient.
The FCC's ruling on Anda's petition may determine whether fax
recipients who expressly agree to receive faxes may assert claims
for receipt of such faxes pursuant to the TCPA. On December 2,
2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss claims the plaintiff is
seeking to assert on behalf of putative class members who
expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes from Defendant, or
in the alternative, to stay the court proceedings pending
resolution of Anda's petition to the FCC. On April 11, 2011, the
court denied the motion. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification. Anda filed its opposition
to the motion on July 13, 2011. The hearing on the class
certification motion is scheduled for September 28, 2011. No
trial date has been set.
Anda intends to defend the action vigorously. However, this
action, if successful, could have an adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Suit Hearing Set for Aug. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court has scheduled for August 8, 2011, a third hearing on the
fairness of the proposed settlement in the consolidated lawsuit
against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's
July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
Beginning in July 2002, the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies,
were named as defendants in various state and federal court
actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices
related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale
acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants
committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and
market shares. Some of these actions have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (In re:
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 145). The consolidated amended Class Action complaint
in that case alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated
the reimbursement amounts of certain drugs paid by various public
and private plans and programs. Certain defendants, including the
Company, have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all
claims against them in the Consolidated Class Action. The total
amount of the settlement for all of the settling defendants is
$125 million. The amount to be paid by each settling defendant is
confidential. On July 2, 2008, the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track
Two settlement. On April 27, 2009, the Court held a hearing to
further consider the fairness of the proposed settlement. The
Court adjourned the hearing without ruling on the fairness of the
proposed settlement until additional notices are provided to
certain of the class members in the action. The court held a
further hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement in
June 2011. No ruling was made. The court has scheduled a third
hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement for August 8,
2011.
The Company says the settlement is not expected to materially
adversely affect the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Androgel(R) Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend antitrust
lawsuits relating to its Androgel(R) product, according to the
Company's July 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the Company's September 2006
patent lawsuit settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful.
The complaint generally alleged that the Company improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit the Company to co-promote
Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the
services provided by the Company, in violation of federal and
state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint
sought equitable relief and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3,
2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et.
al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV
09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana
Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al,
Case No. EDCV 09-0228). On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred
the government and private cases to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009,
the State of California voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against
the Company without prejudice. The Federal Trade Commission and
the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia filed
amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs
amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct
before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection
with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug
Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation. Additional
actions alleging similar claims have been filed in various courts
by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain
classes of similarly situated direct or indirect purchasers of
Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ Dist. v.
Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1507); (Fraternal
Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v.
Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al.,D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1856 ); (Scurto v.
Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1900); (United
Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health
Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-
1168); ( Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc. et al.,
M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v. Unimed
Pharms.,LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240); (Supervalu, Inc. v.
Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-1024); (LeGrand v.
Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ. No. 10-2883); (Jabo's
Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Cocke
County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837).
On April 20, 2009, the Company was dismissed without prejudice
from the Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New
Jersey. On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred all actions then pending outside of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
to that district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel (R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084),
and all currently-pending related actions are presently before
that court. On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all
the consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints,
except the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that
include allegations concerning sham litigation. On July 20, 2010,
the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police action filed an
amended complaint adding allegations concerning conduct before the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the
listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug Administration's
"Orange Book," and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in
the direct purchaser actions. On October 28, 2010, the judge
presiding over MDL 2084 entered an order pursuant to which the
LeGrand action, filed on September 10, 2010, was consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the other indirect purchaser class action
as part of MDL 2084 and made subject to the Court's February 22,
2010 order on the motion to dismiss. Discovery in the private
actions is ongoing. Final judgment in favor of the defendants was
entered in the Federal Trade Commission's action on April 21,
2010. On June 10, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission filed a
notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
appealing the district court's dismissal of its complaint. The
appeal is pending.
The Company believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Cipro(R) Litigation Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its affiliates continue to
defend antitrust lawsuits pending in various courts over
ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, according to the Company's July 26,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
Beginning in July 2000, a number of lawsuits were filed against
Watson, The Rugby Group, Inc. and other company affiliates in
various state and federal courts alleging claims under various
federal and state competition and consumer protection laws.
Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions
seeking class certification. Approximately 42 cases have been
filed against Watson, Rugby and other Watson entities. Twenty-two
of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Ciprofloxacin
Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 001383). On
May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action granted
Watson's motion to dismiss and made rulings limiting the theories
under which plaintiffs can seek recovery against Rugby and the
other defendants. On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the
consolidated action granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendants on all of plaintiffs' claims and denied the plaintiffs'
motions for class certification. On May 7, 2005, three groups of
plaintiffs from the consolidated action (the direct purchaser
plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and plaintiffs Rite
Aid and CVS) filed notices of appeal in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things, the
May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005 order
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On
November 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
ordered the appeal by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs
transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. On October 15, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the indirect
purchasers' claims, and on December 22, 2008, denied the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and rehearing en
banc. On June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari. In the
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by the direct purchaser plaintiffs and plaintiffs CVS and
Rite Aid, on April 29, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and on
September 7, 2010, denied the appellants' petition for rehearing
en banc. On December 6, 2010, the appellants filed a petition for
writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's decision.
On March 7, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari. Other actions are
pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas,
Tennessee, and Florida. The actions generally allege that the
defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in
connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to
the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance
ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand
drug, Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.
In the action pending in Kansas, the court has administratively
terminated the matter pending the outcome of the appeals in the
consolidated case. In the action pending in the California
Superior Court for the County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I &
II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the
California Court of Appeal ruled that the majority of the
plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their claims as a class.
On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was
entered on September 24, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The appeal remains pending.
In addition to the pending actions, Watson understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend
and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the
claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements
allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of
these actions.
*********
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 * * *