/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110921.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 21, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 187 Headlines BMW: Faces Class Action Over Defective Mini Cooper Transmission BURLINGTON COAT: "Vang" Suit Settlement Payments Made in August BYD CO: Employees File Class Action Over Recent Layoffs CAPITAL HOLDINGS: Sued in Calif. Over Phony Land Sale Contracts CHINA FIRE: Final Approval Hearing of "Broward" Deal on Nov. 18 CISCO SYSTEMS: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in California CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Wesson Oils' "100% Natural" Labels COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Circuit Junks Discrimination Class Action CREDIT SUISSE: AOL Investors' Class Action Set for Trial CUMULUS MEDIA: Unit Awaits Approval of Settlement in California DEERE & CO: Recalls 36,500 Lawn Tractors Powered by Kawasaki DIAGEO PLC: Thalidomide-Related Suits Remain Pending GLOBAL TRAFFIC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to GTCR Unit GOV'T OF GREECE: Greeks Mull Class Action Over Property Tax GOV'T OF INDONESIA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Water Services HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif. JBI INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears LINN STATE: Students File Class Action Over Drug Testing Policy MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over Infuse Side Effects MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Ga. Court Tosses MERS Class Action OILSANDS QUEST: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit OPENLANE INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action SOLYNDRA LLC: Faces 2 Class Suits Over WARN Act Violations VAUGHAN FOODS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Gaz Metro Buyout WPCS INT'L: Awaits Decision on Motion to Transfer "McKean" Suit WVS FINANCIAL: Obtained Final OK of "Dragotta" Settlement in June * Tuscarawas County Residents File Mobile Home Class Action ********* BMW: Faces Class Action Over Defective Mini Cooper Transmission --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims the continuously variable automatic transmission fails in BMW's 2002-2006 Mini Coupes and 2005-2008 Mini Cooper convertibles. A copy of the Complaint in Aarons v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-07667 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/16/Cooper.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Roland Tellis, Esq. Mark Pifko, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 860-0476 E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com mpifko@baronbudd.com BURLINGTON COAT: "Vang" Suit Settlement Payments Made in August --------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc., on August 25, 2011, made payments for an immaterial amount under the settlement agreement resolving the putative class action lawsuit commenced by May Vang, according to the Company's September 13, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011. A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California on September 17, 2009, and was amended and refiled on November 16, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Western Division. The named plaintiff purported to assert claims on behalf of all current, former, and future employees in the United States and the State of California for the relevant statutory time period. The amended complaint asserted claims for failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), failure to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the California Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal and rest periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required by statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage statements, and unfair competition. The complaint sought certification as a class with respect to the FLSA claims, certification of a class with respect to California law claims, appointment of class counsel and class representative, civil penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, pre- judgment interest, costs of lawsuit and attorney's fees. On March 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the Central District of California - Western Division granted preliminary approval to a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay class members an immaterial amount in settlement of claims on a class basis. On June 27, 2011, the District Court granted final approval of the parties' settlement agreement. Payment pursuant to the settlement agreement was made on August 25, 2011. The Company says this settlement was included in the Company's $7.1 million legal reserve. BYD CO: Employees File Class Action Over Recent Layoffs ------------------------------------------------------- Yan Pei at China.org.cn, citing Yangcheng Evening News, reports that about 300 employees of BYD Co. have signed onto a class- action lawsuit against the automaker over recent layoffs. BYD, the Chinese battery and auto maker backed by billionaire Warren Buffett, recently started to "redeploy" employees in its auto sales unit. However, rumors have been circulating that the "redeployment" strategy is just a cover-up for the company's layoff moves. BYD has been avoiding using terms like "layoff" in its official statements and the personnel redeployment will not be limited to the auto sales unit, Caixin Magazine quoted a BYD employee as saying. However, according to Yangcheng Evening News, BYD chairman Wang Chuanfu confirmed the recent layoffs at a temporary shareholders meeting on September 9. Executives at BYD's auto sales company continued to deny the layoff rumors. BYD employees involved in the "personnel deployment" have called on their co-workers to petition to protect their rights. "Based on our preliminary statistics, over 200 people have signed up," said one BYD employee. Twenty employee representatives have already joined a class-action lawsuit, the report said. In the first half of this year, BYD sold 220,000 cars, down 23.4% year-on-year. As a result, its net profits dropped 88.6% to CNY275 million. CAPITAL HOLDINGS: Sued in Calif. Over Phony Land Sale Contracts --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims a real estate broker conspired to bilk more than 1,300 investors of $32 million through phony land sale contracts for property that never was sold, fraudulent transfers for trade secrets that do not exist, and taxes that were not owed. Lead plaintiffs Chi Pham and Frank Nguyen say real broker Edith "Jet" Sison, of Rancho Cucamonga, and her cohorts have run the game since July 2004, using the veneer of Capital Holdings, an Ontario, Calif.-based corporation whose seven operators include five members of the Sison family. Ms. Pham and Mr. Nguyen say the scam began with Sison and associates "making false claims in person and through other media including the Internet to being a 'private lender' and 'one of the largest land owners in the High Desert Region' when in truth and fact Capital Holdings, Inc. never made any loans nor did it own any land." The "final phase of the fraud scheme" involved the transfer of at least $32 million of investors' money from Capital Holdings and another defendant, Season's Land Corp., through two LLCs, CJ Intellect and Season's Intellect, "pursuant to phony 'trade secret' licensing agreements," according to the complaint. The complaint continues: "Edith 'Jet' Sison's husband and co- conspirator, Cornelio Sison, has admitted under oath that he 'knows nothing about' the 'trade secrets' he and Edith 'Jet' Sison jointly claimed to have '. . . created, designed, and massively organized through technological and mechanical acquisition, trade experience, research and development, a process known as the Sison Land Acquisition Process . . .' and '. . . Sison Land Sale and Note Servicing Process . . ..' "Under the pretext of their phony trade secret licensing agreements, Edith 'Jet' Sison and Cornelio Sison have admittedly transferred at least $32 million from Capital Holdings Inc. and Season's Land Corp. to two limited liability entities they created and control, i.e. CJ Intellect LLC and Season's Intellect LLC, purportedly pursuant to the licensing of phony trade secrets but without valid consideration, thereafter transferring those millions without consideration to trusts and other entities identified hereinafter, which they control, to impede and prevent fraud victims from recovering their losses." Ms. Pham and Mr. Nguyen say these "predatory and phantom loans, land sale fraud, threats of economic harm and transfers of the proceeds in fraud . . . culminated in threats against the defrauded 'investors' to damage their credit and pursue further collection action against them unless they agreed to abandon any claims: (1) against the defendants herein; (2) to the real estate; and (3) for any refund of the money they paid and lost to Edith 'Jet' Sison and her cohorts." They say that more than 1,312 unsophisticated investors were duped of more than $40 million "for property never actually sold, loans which never were made, and taxes which were never owed." They seek actual and punitive damages, nullification of the cash transfers, disgorgement, restitution, and injunctive relief for intentional misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, constructive fraud, false promise, unfair and deceptive business practices, violation of state codes and fraudulent transfers. A copy of the Complaint in Pham, et al. v. Capital Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2011-00097871 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.) (Pressman, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/16/LandSales.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: William A. Cohan, Esq. WILLIAM A. COHAN PC P.O. Box 3448 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Telephone: (858) 832-1632 E-mail: alicia@williamacohan.com - and - Brad Nakase, Esq. NAKASE LAW CORPORATION 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 550-1321 E-mail: brad@nakaselaw.com CHINA FIRE: Final Approval Hearing of "Broward" Deal on Nov. 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- The hearing on the final approval of China Fire & Security Group, Inc.'s settlement of a merger-related lawsuit known as the Broward Consolidated Action is set for November 18, 2011, according to the Company's September 15, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 20, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Amber Parent Limited ("Parent"), an exempted company incorporated in the Cayman Islands and an affiliate of Bain Capital Asia Fund, L.P. (the "Guarantor") and Bain Capital Fund X, L.P., and Amber Mergerco, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Florida corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. The Company says it is aware of nine putative class action complaints related to the merger (each a "Shareholder Action") filed in various Florida state and federal courts against, among others, the Company and certain officers and directors of the Company. Six Shareholder Actions were filed in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit In and For Broward County, Florida, and have been consolidated under the caption In re China Fire & Security Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 11745 (07) ("Broward Consolidated Action"). One of the Shareholder Actions, Kashef v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 50- 2011 CA 007884, is currently pending in the Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and For Palm Beach County, Florida ("Palm Beach Action"). The final two Shareholder Actions, Fuller v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc., et al., 11-cv-61400-WPD, and James P. Tessitore v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc. et al. 11- cv-61580-WPD, are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The two federal Shareholder Actions were consolidated by an order of the federal court issued on August 2, 2011 ("Federal Consolidated Action"). All the complaints generally allege, among other things, that the Company and certain officers and directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties, and seek, among other things, to enjoin consummation of the merger. The operative complaints also allege aiding and abetting claims against the Sponsors, Parent and Merger Sub. On September 2, 2011, counsel for the parties in the Broward Consolidated Action entered into a stipulation of settlement in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of all claims relating to the merger, known and unknown, that were or could have been asserted in that action. Plaintiffs in the Kashef, Fuller and Tessitore actions are not parties to the proposed settlement. The terms of settlement include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants, and their affiliates and agents, held by plaintiffs in the Broward Consolidated Action and class members (including those claims asserted in the Kashef, Fuller and Tessitore actions). Pursuant to the agreements among counsel for the parties in In re China Fire & Security Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, the Company will make certain supplemental disclosures concerning the merger which are contained in a Form 8- K, and has made other supplemental disclosures subsequent to the June 10, 2011 Preliminary Proxy Statement in response to the Broward Consolidated Action. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the stipulation of settlement, the parties contemplate that lead plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement in the amount of $575,000. The Company says there can be no assurance that the merger will be consummated, or that the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement may be terminated. The settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that Company shareholders are entitled to receive in the merger. The proposed settlement does not provide a right for members of the putative class to opt out; however, class members will retain their right to seek appraisal pursuant to Sections 607.1301 to 607.1333 of the Florida Business Corporation Act, as well as their right to object to any aspect of the settlement. If the settlement is not approved and the aforementioned conditions are not satisfied, the Company and the individual defendants will continue to vigorously defend these actions. On September 9, 2011, a hearing to preliminarily approve the settlement was held in the Broward Consolidated Action and the Court issued an order that, among other provisions, preliminarily approved the settlement, set a final approval hearing for November 18, 2011, at 3 p.m., and enjoined all members of the putative class from commencing or prosecuting claims in any action in any state or federal court that relate broadly to the proposed merger. Subsequently, on September 9, 2011, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Fuller action was filed in federal court and, on September 12, 2011, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Tessitore action was likewise filed in federal court. These voluntary dismissals terminated the Federal Consolidated Action. Defendants expect the Palm Beach Action will also be dismissed, either voluntarily or following final approval of the settlement presented in the Broward Consolidated Action. The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the lawsuits and specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. However, to avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the merger and the related transactions, to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuits, and to provide additional information to the Company's shareholders 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 to settle the In re China Fire & Security Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation proceeding, to avoid the expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve the settled claims. As contemplated by the proposed settlement, the Company is providing certain additional disclosures that are supplemental to those contained in the proxy statement previously mailed. As noted, none of the defendants has admitted wrongdoing of any kind, including but not limited to inadequacies in any disclosure, the materiality of any disclosure that the plaintiffs contend should have been made, any breach of any fiduciary duty, or aiding or abetting any of the allegations. CISCO SYSTEMS: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in California --------------------------------------------------------------- On March 31, 2011, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Cisco Systems, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors. A second lawsuit with substantially similar allegations was filed with the same court on April 12, 2011, against Cisco and certain of its officers and directors. The lawsuits are purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased Cisco's publicly traded securities between May 12, 2010, and February 9, 2011, and between February 3, 2010, and February 9, 2011, respectively. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading statements during quarterly earnings calls, purport to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. No further updates were reported in the Company's September 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended July 30, 2011. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously. While the Company believes there is no legal basis for liability, due to the uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, it is unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time. CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Wesson Oils' "100% Natural" Labels ----------------------------------------------------------- Lil Marie Virr on behalf of herself and a class of all others similarly situated v. ConAgra Foods Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-04607 (N.D. Calif., September 16, 2011) is brought on behalf of a class of persons, who purchased any of the cooking oils sold under the Wesson brand name, Canola Oil, Vegetable Oil, Corn Oil and Best Blend. Wesson is a brand owned, developed, marketed and sold by ConAgra. The Plaintiff notes that ConAgra labels its Wesson Oils as "100% Natural," which representation is central to ConAgra's marketing of Wesson Oils, and is displayed prominently on the product label itself, the Wesson Web site, and all Wesson Oils' advertisements. Ms. Virr alleges that Wesson Oils are not "100% natural" for they are made from genetically modified plants or organisms. Ms. Virr is a resident of San Francisco, California. She asserts that she regularly purchased Wesson Canola Oil for her own and her family's consumption because she believed the Defendant's representation that Wesson Canola Oil was 100% natural. She contends that she would not have purchased Wesson Canola Oil, but for the Defendant's misleading statements about the product being 100% natural. ConAgra is a Delaware corporation located in Omaha, Nebraska. ConAgra markets and distributes Wesson Oils. The Plaintiff is represented by: Julio J. Ramos, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JULIO J. RAMOS 35 Grove Street, Suite 107 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 948-3015 Facsimile: (415) 469-9787 E-mail: ramoslawgroup@yahoo.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: 9th Circuit Junks Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 16 rejected a class action for gender discrimination against Costco warehouse- store chain, finding that a lower court had not examined the plaintiffs' commonality rigorously enough in light of the recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling favoring Wal-Mart. The federal appeals court's unanimous ruling does not entirely doom the claims of current and former Costco employees, who say they were passed over for promotion because of their gender. The San Francisco-based court vacated a lower court's certification of the proposed class and remanded the case for a harder look at the plaintiffs' commonality. In doing so, a three-judge panel of 9th Circuit judges cited the Supreme Court's June ruling in Wal-Mart Stores. v. Dukes, which sharpened the class-action certification game significantly by prohibiting more than a million Wal-Mart employees from suing the retail giant as one class. Last year, the 9th Circuit had ruled to send the massive class on to trial. "Given this new precedent altering existing case law, we must remand to the District Court," Judge N. Randy Smith wrote for the panel. "The District Court failed to conduct the required 'rigorous analysis' to determine whether there were common questions of law or fact among the class members' claims," he added. "Instead it relied on the admissibility of plaintiffs' evidence to reach its conclusion on commonality." In a small silver lining for the plaintiffs, the panel agreed that Elaine Sasaki can represent the proposed class of female Costco employees who were passed over for promotion because of their gender. Currently an assistant general manager with Costco in Visalia, Calif, Ms. Sasaki filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2005 after being passed over for promotion several times. She joined the proposed class action in 2006 with two other named plaintiffs, but she's the only one of them still working for the company. This gives Ms. Sasaki some incentive to seek change within at Costco, rather than just money, the court found. "As a current employee who continues to be denied promotion, Sasaki has incentive to vigorously pursue injunctive relief as well as monetary damages on behalf of all the class members," the ruling states. A copy of the Opinion in Ellis, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 07-15838 (9th Cir.), is available at: http://is.gd/4Z8TTD Costco Wholesale Corporation was represented by: Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq. David D. Kadue, Esq. David B. Ross, Esq. Gerlad L. Maatman, Esq. Thomas J. Wybenga, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 218-5500 The Plaintiffs-Appellees were represented by: Brad Seligman, Esq. Jocelyn D. Larkin, Esq. THE IMPACT FUND 125 University Avenue, Suite 102 Berkeley CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 845-3473 ext. 301 E-mail: impactfund@impactfund.org - and - Steve Stemerman, Esq. Elizabeth A. Lawrence, Esq. Sarah Varela, Esq. DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE 595 Market Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: stem@dcbsf.com eal@dcbsf.com svarela@dcbsf.com - and - Bill Lann Lee, Esq. Lindsay Nako, Esq. Julia Campins, Esq. LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 E-mail: contact@lewisfeinberg.com CREDIT SUISSE: AOL Investors' Class Action Set for Trial -------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a trove of suspicious e-mails convinced a Boston federal judge to advance a securities fraud class action alleging that Credit Suisse misled investors about AOL-Time Warner's financial health. AOL investors who bought stock between 2001 and 2002 say they relied on research reports from Credit Suisse First Boston when trading. "These faulty recommendations, plaintiffs argue, were the products not of naive optimism, or an honest disagreement, but of calculated misdirection," according to the court's summary. The class filed suit against the bank, its subsidiary, two analysts and two managers. They claim the analysts knowingly issued bogus research reports with an eye toward generating business for Credit Suisse's investment banking division. In July 2002, The Washington Post published articles revealing that AOL engaged in accounting gimmickry and was artificially inflating its numbers to hide declining advertising revenues. Investors say these revelations confirmed what Credit Suisse had known all along. U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner rejected motions for summary judgment filed by each group of defendants. "While in many securities cases, the parties rely on circumstantial evidence to recreate what defendants must have known, plaintiffs have provided striking direct evidence to buttress their claims," Judge Gertner said. Credit Suisse issued 35 research reports from January 2001 to July 2002 encouraging investors to purchase AOL stock, but contemporaneous e-mails show that the analysts knew the company's finances "to be far more precarious than their reports reflected," a 14-page ruling states. Certain e-mails between Credit Suisse analysts show they knew AOL's earnings projections were misleading, Judge Gertner found. The e-mails also suggest that the bank negotiated with AOL about what information it would release in its reports. To avoid "pissing off the company," one analyst, defendant Laura Martin, wrote that she "would NOT lower numbers on AOL, even though they can't make them." Ms. Martin warned that AOL's earnings projections were "not honest" and explicitly referred to the company's "accounting gimmickry." Other defendants' e-mails referred to the importance of "muffling" Ms. Martin's concerns. Credit Suisse did not downgrade AOL's stock until September 2001, and then only to a limited degree. AOL stock plummeted when the Post published its expose. Judge Gertner balked at claims that the e-mails were "merely internal professional disagreements," with analysts using "provocative language" in pursuit of an "honest intellectual debate" about AOL's financial prospects. "Defendants' arguments, however, are just that, arguments providing an alternative narrative, not dispositive as a matter of law," Judge Gertner wrote. Regarding whether they intentionally mislead investors, "a jury could reasonably infer that they did so to curry favor with AOL in the hopes of obtaining lucrative investment banking business," she ruled. The court concluded that summary judgment is inappropriate at this stage because sorting out the plaintiffs' claims "requires more than warring affidavits and strident briefs. It requires an evidentiary hearing." CUMULUS MEDIA: Unit Awaits Approval of Settlement in California --------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Cumulus Media Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its settlement of a purported class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's September 15, 2011, Form 8- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On January 21, 2010, a former employee of Cumulus Media Partners, LLC's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, CMP Susquehanna Corp. ("CMPSC") filed a purported class action lawsuit, pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (the "Court"), against CMPSC claiming (i) unlawful failure to pay required overtime wages; (ii) late pay and waiting time penalties; (iii) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (iv) failure to indemnify for necessary expenses and losses; and (v) unfair trade practices under California's Unfair Competition Act. On September 2, 2011, CMPSC and this former employee entered into a Joint Stipulation re: Settlement and Release of Class Action Claims (the "Settlement") with respect to such lawsuit. The Settlement, which remains subject to the approval of the Court, provides for the payment by CMPSC of a maximum of $0.9 million in full and final settlement of all of the claims made in the lawsuit. DEERE & CO: Recalls 36,500 Lawn Tractors Powered by Kawasaki ------------------------------------------------------------ About 36,500 units of John Deere X300, X300R and X304 series tractors were voluntarily recalled by tractor manufacturer, Deere & Company, of Moline, Illinois, and engine manufacturer, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in cooperation with the CPSC. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The cooling fan installed on top of the front mounted Kawasaki engine in the lawn tractor can break. If the cooling fan is not operational, the engine can overheat causing the surrounding plastic to melt, creating the risk of fire and serious injury. There have been 163 reported failures, including 83 reports of engine melting or engine fires and one report of a minor burn injury following a fan failure fire. This recall involves John Deere X300, X300R and X304 Select Series(TM) Lawn Tractors with Kawasaki FS541V engines manufactured between September 20, 2010, and July 21, 2011, within these serial number ranges: 1M0X300B++M180001 thru 1M0X300B++M180600 1M0X300C++M180001 thru 1M0X300C++M208330 1M0X300E++M180001 thru 1M0X300E++M180718 1M0X300F++M180001 thru 1M0X300F++M180888 1M0X300G++M180001 thru 1M0X300G++M183700 1M0X300H++M180001 thru 1M0X300H++M180145 1M0X300J++M180001 thru 1M0X300J++M180106 1M0X304A++M180001 thru 1M0X304A++M184936 1M0X304B++M180001 thru 1M0X304B++M180696 1M0X304C++M180001 thru 1M0X304C++M180054 The model number is on both sides of the tractor hood, and the serial number can be found on the machine frame near the front right tire. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11752.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold nationwide at John Deere dealers in the U.S. from September 2010 to August 2011 for between about $3,000 and $4,000. Customers should stop using the mowers immediately and contact a John Deere dealer to make arrangements to have the engine cooling fan replaced. All registered owners of the recalled mowers will be directly notified by John Deere. For additional information, contact Deere & Company at (800) 537-8233 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays Eastern Time or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.johndeere.com/ DIAGEO PLC: Thalidomide-Related Suits Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------- The lawsuits alleging injuries from thalidomide consumption asserted against Diageo plc's subsidiaries remain pending, according to the Company's September 13, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011. In Australia, a class action claim alleging product liability and negligence for injuries arising from the consumption of the drug thalidomide has been filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria against Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Limited, its parent Diageo Scotland Limited (formerly Distillers Company Limited), as well as against Grunenthal GmbH, the developer of the drug. Diageo Scotland is a Company subsidiary. The size of the class has not yet been specified. In the United Kingdom, similar proceedings have been commenced on behalf of one individual in relation to alleged thalidomide injuries. Distillers Company (Biochemicals) Limited distributed the drug in Australia and the United Kingdom for a period in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Diageo says it is unable to quantify meaningfully the possible loss or range of loss to which these lawsuits may give rise. The Company has worked voluntarily for many years with various thalidomide organizations and has provided significant financial support. Diageo intends, however, to vigorously defend these lawsuits. GLOBAL TRAFFIC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to GTCR Unit ---------------------------------------------------------- Global Traffic Network, Inc., is facing a putative shareholder class action lawsuit over an offer from an affiliate of GTCR, LLC, to acquire the Company, according to Global Traffic's September 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011. On August 2, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive agreement (the "Merger Agreement") to be acquired by an affiliate of GTCR, LLC ("GTCR"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, GTCR Gridlock Holdings, Inc., a newly formed entity affiliated with GTCR, commenced a tender offer on August 9, 2011, to acquire all of the Company's outstanding common stock for $14.00 per share in cash (the "Offer"), to be followed by a merger (the "Merger") to acquire all remaining outstanding shares at the same price paid in the Offer. On August 31, 2011, Broadbased Equities, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a complaint captioned Broadbased Equities v. William L. Yde III, et al. on behalf of itself and as a putative class action on behalf of the Company's public shareholders in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The complaint names as defendants the members of the Company's board of directors, as well as the Company, GTCR and certain of its affiliated entities. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company board of directors breached its fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and fair dealing to shareholders, and that the Company board of directors and the Company breached their fiduciary duties to disclose material facts to shareholders, in each case, in connection with the Offer and the Merger. The complaint further claims that GTCR and certain of its affiliated entities aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks (i) injunctive relief, including to enjoin the Offer and the Merger, (ii) a determination that the action is a proper class action and that the plaintiff is a proper class representative, (iii) a declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and other Company shareholders and/or aided and abetted such breaches, (iv) additional disclosures with respect to the Offer and the Merger, (v) compensatory and/or rescissory damages and (vi) an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs in addition to other unspecified relief. The defendants believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously contest the action. GOV'T OF GREECE: Greeks Mull Class Action Over Property Tax ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthee Carassava, writing for Sky News, reports that crisis-weary Greeks are striking back at added austerity, vowing to mount class action suits in defiance of a new property tax. The tax is being introduced by the government to meet deficit reduction targets as nervous creditors consider the future disbursement of multi-billion loan funds to Athens. The Athens Bar Association says it is preparing to launch class action suits against the state, arguing that the government's move to charge the new tariff through homeowners' electricity bills is unconstitutional. "The public power corporation -- DEH -- is a public utilities company," said lawyer Dimitris Varvaresos. "It's not the state tax-collecting authority." Streams of social networking sites and blogs have sprung up since the property tax was announced over the weekend, marking a humiliating climb-down for the socialist government and its pledge to protect the households from further austerity measures. The government hopes to collect more than EUR2 billion (GBP1.74 billion) from the new property tax -- the fourth to hit Greek homeowners in under two years. It has also warned it will switch off the lights of landowners who dodge payment of the new tax. Seven in 10 Greeks already face difficulty paying a rash of austerity-imposed taxes, according to a recent opinion poll. The public power corporation, DEH says, it, too, is having financial problems, with 909,000 accounts in arrears. In announcing the new property tax, finance minister Evangelos Venizelos said homeowners would be charged a certain rate per square meter between 50 cents and EUR10 (43p and GBP8.72p). Four days later, when full details of the Bill -- due to be tabled in parliament this week -- were disclosed, homeowners were slapped with surcharges of up to EUR16 (GBP13.95p) per square meter, stoking public anger even further. While the measure aims to target high earners, the finance ministry has moved to exempt hotels, factories, monasteries and places of worship owned by the wealthy Greek Church, leaving struggling social groups -- including unemployed and handicapped Greeks -- to foot the bill. "This is war for us," said Nikos Fotopoulos, the union leader of DEH. "We stand by the working class. We will block any attempt to have this charge printed on our bills and to keep struggling Greeks in the dark." Failure to collect the targeted income could imperil Greece's chance of getting further loans from its European peers and the International Monetary Fund. GOV'T OF INDONESIA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Water Services --------------------------------------------------------------- Radio Australia reports that the problem of water access in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta has gotten so bad that a group of NGOs and residents have submitted a lawsuit against a slew of authorities. Those cited include the Water Service Department, the city of Jakarta, the Indonesian government and a private French company which manages the service. The lawsuit is said to blame the 1997 privatization of water supply for raising prices without improving the service. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Hewlett-Packard Company from November 22, 2010, and August 18, 2011. The Complaint charges HP and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants concealed the following: (i) HP's business model was not working, as the Company was unable to leverage its extensive portfolio and scale of products and services in a strategically beneficial manner; (ii) webOS, the TouchPad and the PC business were not central to HP's business model and webOS would not be integrated across HP's entire product line; (iii) the TouchPad hardware was inefficient, limiting the degree of effectiveness of the webOS operating system; and (iv) defendants lacked a reasonable basis for positive statements about HP's turnaround, revenue growth rates, market share, new product and introductions. On August 18, 2011, HP announced disappointing third quarter fiscal 2011 financial results and issued revised guidance for 2011. HP also announced several major shifts in its long-term business model, including that it "will discontinue operations for webOS devices, specifically the TouchPad and webOS phones." On this news, HP's stock declined to $29.51, and to $23.60 the following day. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than November 14, 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/hp/or contact Izard Nobel LLP toll-free: (800)797-5499, or by e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com JBI INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears --------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important September 26, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action on behalf of purchasers of JBI, Inc. stock during the period from August 28, 2009, through July 20, 2011. You can join the class action and seek to recover your investment losses. To join the JBI class action, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The Complaint alleges that JBI materially overstated its income in connection with its acquisition of JavaCo, Inc. in 2009. On May 21, 2010, JBI disclosed that its previously issued financial statements for the 2009 fiscal year and third quarter should no longer be relied upon. On July 14, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission advised the Company that it was recommending enforcement action against it and possibly one or more of its former officers as a result of the Company having issued materially inaccurate financial statements. News that JBI was required to restate its financial statements and was subject to an SEC enforcement action for violation of the federal securities laws has caused its stock price to drop substantially, damaging investors. You may participate in the securities class action lawsuit to recover your investment losses. If you purchased JBI stock, please visit the Web site at http://rosenlegal.comto participate in the class action and to obtain more information. You may also contact Jonathan Horne of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767- 3653 or via e-mail at or jhorne@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. LINN STATE: Students File Class Action Over Drug Testing Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that requiring students at a public college to submit to mandatory drug screening is an invasion of privacy, the American Civil Liberties Union asserted in a class action filed on Sept. 14 of behalf of six students at Linn State Technical College in Missouri. The suit, filed in the U.S District Court for the Western District of Missouri, asked the court to declare Linn State's drug testing policy unconstitutional and to require the school to refund the $50 fee students were charged for the testing. Just hours after the suit was filed, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey issued a temporary restraining order to stop the testing of student urine samples that had already been collected. Kent Brown, a lawyer representing the college, did not respond to requests for comment. Linn State, located in Jefferson City Mo., was the first public college in the United States to require students to submit to drug testing as a condition of enrollment, according to the complaint. "It is unconstitutional to force students to submit to a drug test when there is zero indication of any kind of criminal activity," said Jason Williamson, a staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. "The college has demonstrated no legitimate need to drug test its students that outweighs their constitutionally protected privacy rights." The two-year college implemented the drug screening policy for all new students enrolling for the fall term and for students returning after taking one or more semesters off. Any student who refuses must withdraw from the college, and any student testing positive for drugs has 45 days to take a new test on pain of expulsion. The college adopted the testing to "prepare students for profitable employment and a life of learning," the college said in a document explaining the policy. That same document said that administrators don't believe the college has an unusually large drug problem. According to the ACLU, college officials told the organization that drug testing was a safety measure to protect students using heavy machinery. None of the six plaintiffs use heavy machinery, the ACLU said. The suit names the president of the college and seven regents as defendants. The ACLU filed the suit with the assistance of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Lawsuit in Florida Over Infuse Side Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that Jennifer English of Lake Worth, Florida, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Medtronic, Inc. In August 2007, Ms. English, a physical therapist, was implanted with Medtronic's Infuse Bone Graft ("Infuse") during a posterior-approach lumbar spine surgery, a type of surgery for which the Food and Drug Administration has not approved Infuse. Ms. English charges that Infuse caused her to develop ectopic, or uncontrolled, bone growth in her spine, compressing nerves and leading to chronic and ongoing severe pain. "The complaint alleges that Medtronic fraudulently misrepresented the risks and benefits of Infuse and improperly promoted and marketed Infuse for non-FDA approved uses," stated Ms. Fleishman. "When Infuse is implanted in off-label surgeries, medical research shows that it can cause uncontrolled bone growth into or around the spinal cord, often leading to intractable pain and difficult and dangerous revision surgeries to remove unwanted bone." Ms. English has been forced to undergo two revision surgeries so far to remove the excessive bone growth, including an emergency surgery. She suffers continuous pain in her back and legs from ordinary everyday activities, such as sitting or standing for extended periods of time. "I trusted Medtronic with my life," stated Ms. English. "It is disappointing to find out Medtronic is not looking out for the best interests of the patient, but for own its financial interests." The complaint, entitled English v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 9:11- cv-81054, was filed late Friday, September 17, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. About the Infuse Bone Graft and Side Effects Infuse is a bioengineered material (rhBMP-2) that spurs bone growth. It is often used in spinal fusion operations, a procedure in which spinal vertebrae are fused together to reduce back pain. Infuse is manufactured by Medtronic, the nation's largest maker of medical devices. Each year over 100,000 U.S. patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery receive Infuse. In 2002, the FDA approved Infuse for only one specific type of spine surgery - anterior approach lumbar fusion. Infuse was not approved by FDA for (and still is not approved for) use in either lateral or posterior approach lumbar fusion surgeries. Infuse has never been approved by FDA for use in the cervical spine (the portion of the spine that runs from the shoulders to the head). However, many patients have received Infuse in risky off-label uses in either the lumbar or cervical spine. When any drug or medical device, such as Infuse, is used by a physician in an off-label use, the patient must be informed of this off-label or experimental use. The risks of the off-label use must be fully disclosed prior to the surgery, so the patient may make an informed decision as to whether or not he or she wishes to receive the Infuse bone graft. On June 28, 2011, The Spine Journal, a medical journal, criticized research by Medtronic-funded physicians encouraging the widespread off-label use of Infuse as "biased and corrupted research." The articles in The Spine Journal charge that the prior studies in support of Infuse were authored by researchers with significant financial ties to Medtronic, and that this prior research vastly understated or failed to disclose Infuse's side effects and risks. Legal Resources for Injured Infuse Patients Lieff Cabraser represents patients across America who have been seriously injured by faulty medical devices and products, and the families of loved ones who died from dangerous or defective drugs and devices. Learn more about Infuse bone problem side effects at http://www.InfuseBoneProblemLawsuit.comand also see our video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSezoZqtI0Qon Infuse bone graft complications and lawsuits. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney law firm founded in 1972 with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. Described by The American Lawyer as "one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms," Lieff Cabraser enjoys a national reputation for professional integrity and the successful prosecution of its clients' claims. In the 2010 edition of its annual list of the top plaintiffs' law firms, The National Law Journal again selected Lieff Cabraser. Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs' law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last eight years. Learn more about the firm at www.lieffcabraser.com Infuse is a registered trademark of Medtronic, Inc. The uses of this trademark is for product identification and informational purposes only. Lieff Cabraser is in no way affiliated with Medtronic. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Ga. Court Tosses MERS Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- MortgageOrb.com reports that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has dismissed all claims against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS) and all other defendants in the class-action lawsuit Jenkins v. McCalla Raymer. District Judge Charles A. Pannell rejected the plaintiffs' allegations of fraud and conspiracy, stating that the use of MERS as grantee of the plaintiffs' security deeds is not fraudulent because MERS is disclosed in that capacity even though the term "nominee" is not defined in the security instrument. In his ruling, Judge Pannell found no merit in the plaintiffs' claims that the MERS assignments of the security deeds were fraudulent or that MERS made misrepresentations to the plaintiffs through the MERS assignments themselves. The court noted that MERS could not have made these misrepresentations to the plaintiffs through the assignments because the plaintiffs were not parties to the assignments, MERS reports. OILSANDS QUEST: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Oilsands Quest Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a putative securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's September 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011. On February 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint (the "Original Complaint") was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company on behalf of investors who purchased or sold the Company's securities between August 14, 2006, and July 14, 2009, alleging claims of securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, and control person liability for such fraud under Section 20(a) of the same act, arising out of the Company's accounting for its acquisition of an interest in Oilsands Quest Sask Inc. ("OQI Sask") in August 2006. On May 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in that putative class action filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleging the same legal causes of action but making the following changes from the Original Complaint: a) expanding the putative class period so that it runs from March 20 2006 to January 13, 2011; b) naming as additional defendants eight individuals who are current or former directors of the Company as well as two additional corporate defendants, McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd. and TD Securities, Inc.; and c) basing the claimed fraud on a new theory that the Company overstated the value of its mineral rights as a result of misstatements about, among other things, the potential for extracting bitumen from oil sands lands for which the Company had exploration and development permits. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On June 6, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On June 20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Company filed its reply to the plaintiffs' opposition on June 27, 2011, and on July 29, 2011, the court heard oral arguments and reserved decision. OPENLANE INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the board of directors of OPENLANE, Inc. on behalf of its shareholders and is actively litigating claims concerning breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to the Company's entry into an agreement to be acquired by KAR Auction Services, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, ADESA, Inc. in an all cash transaction valued at approximately $210 million, plus an increase for some indeterminate amount of "excess cash" on OPENLANE's balance sheet at closing, representing an amount, according to the Company, of "up to approximately $8.30 in cash, without interest, less any applicable withholding taxes" per share. The case is styled as Treadway v. OPENLANE, Inc., C.A. No. 6849-VCN (Del. Ch.). Click here to learn more and to view a copy of the Complaint: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/openlaneinc-opnn Plaintiff has alleged that the Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process that resulted from the Board's failure to maximize shareholder value and deprived OPENLANE's public shareholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long- term prospects. Furthermore, as alleged in the Complaint, compounding the unfairness of the Proposed Transaction is the Board's attempt to obtain shareholder ratification of its conduct in connection with its approval of the Proposed Transaction through materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in OPENLANE's Proxy Statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on Schedule DEFM14A on September 8, 2011. If you own the common stock of OPENLANE and purchased your shares before August 15, 2011, if you have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: 888-969-4242 302-295-5310 E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, has extensive experience litigating securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States. SOLYNDRA LLC: Faces 2 Class Suits Over WARN Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Peter M. Kohlstadt and Dan Bruan filed separate lawsuits in bankruptcy court, on behalf of a class of similarly situated former employees of Solyndra LLC and 360 Degree Solar Holdings Inc. over mass layoffs and plant closing on Aug. 31, 2011, in violation of the 60-day advance written notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et seq. Roughly 1,000 employees lost their jobs at facilities in the Freemont, California area and elsewhere. The Kohlstadt action also asserts violations of the California Labor Code Sec. 1400 et seq. The Plaintiffs seek class action certification and appointment as class representative. The Kohlstadt action was originally filed on Sept. 2, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. C11-04403 JSC. The Plaintiffs seek to recover 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the WARN Acts, from the Defendants, as well as full accrued paid time off. The Plaintiffs assert their claims are entitled to first priority administrative expense status pursuant to the Sec. 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. Counsel to the Kohlstadt Plaintiffs are: Frederick Rosner, Esq. THE ROSNER LAW GROUP LLC 824 N. Market Street, Suite 810 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-1111 E-mail: rosner@teamrosner.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com rsr@outtengolden.com Counsel to the Bruan Plaintiffs are: James E. Huggett, Esq. Stephanie Noble Tickle, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 102 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: 302-888-1112 Fax: 302-888-1119 E-mail: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 423 New York, NY 10038 Tel: 212-581-5005 Fax: 212-581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM P.C. 201 S. Washington Ave. Mobile, AL 36602 Tel: 251-433-8100 Fax: 251-433-8181 E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com About Solyndra LLC Fremont, California-based Solyndra LLC and 360 Degree Solar Holdings Inc. sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 11-12799) on Sept. 6, 2011. Solyndra LLC is at least the third solar company to seek court protection from creditors since August. Solyndra LLC owed secured lenders $783.8 million, including $527.8 million to the U.S. government pursuant to a federal loan guarantee, and held assets valued at $859 million as of the Petition date. The U.S. Federal Financing Bank, owned by the U.S. Treasury Department, is the Company's biggest lender. Founded in 2005, Solyndra is a U.S. manufacturer of solar photovoltaic solar power systems specifically designed for large commercial and industrial rooftops and for certain shaded agriculture applications. The Company had approximately 968 full time employees and 211 temporary employees. Solyndra has sold more than 500,000 of its panels since 2008 and generated cumulative sales of over $250 million. In the Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors are pursuing a two-pronged strategy to effectuate either a sale of their business to a "turnkey" buyer who may acquire substantially all of Solyndra's assets or, if the Debtors are unable to identify any such potential buyers, an orderly liquidation of the Debtors' assets for the benefit of their creditors. The Company has tapped Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP as legal adviser. VAUGHAN FOODS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Vaughan Foods, Inc.'s September 13, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it reached an agreement in principle to settle the purported class action lawsuit, styled Kevin Wolters v. Herbert Grimes et al. (the "Action"), challenging the proposed merger of Vaughan and Reser's Fine Foods, Inc. (the "Merger"). Effective as of September 9, 2011, the parties to the Action entered into a Memorandum of Agreement pursuant to which the Action would be settled in consideration for Vaughan having made certain additional disclosures relating to the Merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on September 9, 2011, and the defendants' agreement to pay plaintiff's reasonable legal counsel's fees and disbursements in an amount to be negotiated or, if no agreement can be reached, an amount determined by the United States District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, having jurisdiction over the Action (the "Court"). The settlement is subject to the parties agreeing on, executing and presenting to the Court within 60 days a formal Stipulation of Settlement that will dismiss the Action with prejudice against all the defendants. About Vaughan Foods Vaughan Foods is an integrated manufacturer and distributor of value-added, refrigerated foods and is uniquely able to distribute fresh-cut produce items along with a full array of value-added refrigerated prepared foods multiple times per week. Vaughan sells to both food service and retail sectors. Its products consist of fresh-cut vegetables, fresh-cut fruits, salad kits, prepared salads, dips, spreads, soups, sauces and side dishes. VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Gaz Metro Buyout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a union pension fund claims Central Vermont Public Services, the state's largest utility, "in bad faith and for self-interested reasons," rejected a $34 per share buyout offer from Gaz Metro, of Quebec, in favor of a $30.27 per share offer from Fortis, also of Canada. A copy of the Complaint in IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, et al. v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00222 (D. Vt.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/16/VCPS.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip C. Woodward, Esq. WOODWARD & KELLEY, PLLC 1233 Shelbourne Road, Suite D-3 South Burlington, VT 05403 Telephone: (802) 652-9699 - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq. David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Eun Jin Lee, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com ricka@rgrdlaw.com DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com - and - Steven F. Marino, Esq. MARINO, CONROY & COYLE 301 Wharton Street Philadelphia, PA 19147 Telephone: (215) 462-3200 E-mail: smarino@marinoconroy.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Julia J. Sun, Esq. WEISS & LURIE 1500 Broadway, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 E-mail: racocelli@weisslurie.com jsun@weisslurie.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4292 E-mail: denright@zlk.com WPCS INT'L: Awaits Decision on Motion to Transfer "McKean" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- WPCS International Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on its motion to transfer the class action lawsuit commenced by Edwin M. McKean to Chester County and consolidate it with the Rapozo vs. WPCS case, according to the Company's September 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011. On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County, against the Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint. The case is Ralph Rapozo v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., Docket No. 11-06837. In this action, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction in which Multiband Corporation would acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the consideration to be paid for such acquisition by Multiband is inadequate, and that the individual board members failed to engage in an honest and fair sales process for the Company and failed to disclose material information for the purposes of advancing their own interests over those of the Company and its shareholders. To that end, the plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's board of directors. In the event that the proposed transaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company and Multiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for which he seeks unspecified money damages. WPCS' time to answer or move with respect to the Complaint has not yet expired. However, the Company and its directors deny the material allegations of this complaint and intend to vigorously defend this action. On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County, against the Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint. The case was Robert Shepler v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al, Docket No. 11-06838. On August 11, 2011, the Shepler case was consolidated into the Rapozo vs. WPCS case. On June 30, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, against the Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint. The case is Edwin M. McKean v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., Civil Action No. 3085. WPCS has filed a motion to transfer this case to Chester County and consolidate into the Rapozo vs. WPCS case. WPCS expects the motion to be granted as the plaintiff has agreed to not oppose it. WVS FINANCIAL: Obtained Final OK of "Dragotta" Settlement in June ----------------------------------------------------------------- The court issued a final order in June 2011 approving the class action settlement resolving the lawsuit commenced by Matthew Dragotta against West View Savings Bank, according to WVS Financial Corp.'s September 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011. A lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff Matthew Dragotta against West View Savings Bank. The Plaintiff alleged that West View Savings Bank failed to comply with the notification requirements of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et. Seq. before a bank can impose a transaction fee for the use of an automated teller machine. On August 24, 2009, U.S. District Judge, Terrance P. McVerry issued an order granting the Bank's motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. On September 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a motion for Reconsideration of Judge McVerry's order granting the Bank's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On October 16, 2009, Judge McVerry denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. On November 4, 2009, the Plaintiff provided a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appealing Judge McVerry's orders of September 3 and October 16, 2009. On September 28, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated Judge McVerry's orders and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings. During the quarter ended December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Savings Bank agreed to settle this lawsuit. The settlement will be structured as a class action. In connection with the settlement, the Savings Bank agreed to refund ATM fees collected and to pay a negotiated amount of the Plaintiff's attorney's fees and litigation costs. The Savings Bank decided to settle this lawsuit for $81 thousand in order to avoid the costs of protracted litigation. In connection with the settlement, the Savings Bank recorded a non-recurring charge of $81 thousand during the quarter ended December 31, 2010. On March 7, 2011, U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry issued an order preliminarily approving a class action settlement, directed the dissemination of notice and set a final settlement hearing date for June 16, 2011. On June 16, 2011, U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry issued a final order approving the class action settlement. * Tuscarawas County Residents File Mobile Home Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- WTOV9.com reports that people in Tuscarawas County are trying to organize people involved in a mobile home class-action lawsuit. A suit has been filed against a man who is accused of selling mobile homes without giving owners the title. A New Philadelphia law firm is handling the case. Workers say several people have started coming forward. Those who have come forward are planning to meet with the attorney handling the lawsuit on Sept. 23 at Tuscarawaras Park at 1:00 p.m. and they are inviting anyone involved with the case to attend. ********* 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 * * *