/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110929.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 29, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 193 Headlines APPLE INC: Conspired to Increase eBook Prices, Suit Claims AT&T MOBILITY: Accused of Violating California Labor Laws COMMERCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Suit Over California Law Violations COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Tosses Gender Discrimination Class Action EASTMAN KODAK: Sued in Calif. Over All-In-One Inkjet Printers GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Alleges INTESA SANPAOLO: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed LEXISNEXIS: Pre-Certification Discovery Process Ongoing NATIONAL MILK: Limits Production to Raise Milk Price, Suit Says NONNI'S FOODS: Sued in Calif. Over Biscotti "All Natural" Label NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Court OKs Immigrant Class Action Settlement SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Bay Street Firms File Class Actions STATE OF OHIO: AG Wants Unclaimed Funds Class Action Settled SOUTH AFRICAN MINING COMPANIES: Retired Miners Mull Class Action UNITED STATES: DHS Chooses Riggs-Abney to Defend Class Action YAZ BIRTH CONTROL PILLS: Lieff Cabraser Comments on FDA Warning ZIPREALTY: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations ZST DIGITAL: Deadline to Seek Dismissal of "Scott" Suit on Nov. 4 ********* APPLE INC: Conspired to Increase eBook Prices, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Katrina Key, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Apple, Inc.; Hachette Book Group; HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.; Macmillan Publishers, Inc.; Penguin Group (USA) Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-04754 (N.D. Calif., September 23, 2011) alleges that the Defendants coordinated to force Amazon to abandon its pro-consumer pricing. The Publisher Defendants worked together to force the eBook sales model to be entirely restructured, which would halt the discounting of eBook prices and uniformly raise prices on all first release fiction and nonfiction published by the Publisher Defendants, according to the lawsuit. Under the Publisher Defendants' new pricing model, known as the "Agency model", they have restrained trade by coordinating their pricing to directly set retail prices higher than had existed in the previously competitive market, Ms. Key argues. Ms. Key is a resident of Alabama. She asserts that she paid higher prices for her eBooks as a direct and foreseeable result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants. Apple is a California corporation and is a leading manufacturer of mobile devices designed to distribute, store, and display digital media. Hachette Book is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and its imprints include Little, Brown & Co. and Grand Central Publishing. HarperCollins is a leading U.S. trade publisher and its imprints include Ecco, Harper, Harper Perennial and William Morrow. Macmillan is a group of leading publishing companies and its U.S. publishers include Farrar Straus and Giroux, Henry Holt & Company, Picador, and St. Martin's Press. Penguin Group (USA) is the U.S. affiliate of Penguin Group, one of the largest English-language trade book publishers in the world. Penguin's imprints include Viking, Riverhead Books, Dutton and Penguin Books. Simon & Schuster is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and is part of CBS Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Walter W. Noss, Esq. Kristen M. Anderson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT LLP 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com wnoss@scott-scott.com kanderson@scott-scottt.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Daniel J. Mogin, Esq. THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C. 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 687-6611 E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com - and - Richard S. Frankowski, Esq. BURKE HARVEY & FRANKOWSKI, L.L.C. One Highland Place 2151 Highland Avenue, Suite 120 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9091 E-mail: rfrankowski@bhflegal.com AT&T MOBILITY: Accused of Violating California Labor Laws --------------------------------------------------------- George Gallardo, Carlos Barragan, Kyle Binns, Carlos Cruz, Jennifer De Witt, Hector Rodriguez, Denise Roman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, a limited liability corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG 11591396 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., August 19, 2011) is brought to recover penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 and the Labor Code. The Plaintiffs say that they brought the lawsuit to address an employer's violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs also accuse the Defendants of failing and refusing to provide suitable seating for the Plaintiffs and other current and former employees of AT&T. The Plaintiffs are residents of California and current employees of AT&T. AT&T is a limited liability corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and authorized to do and doing business in California. AT&T is a nationwide company that retails wireless telephones and related equipment, accessories and services to the general public. The Plaintiffs do not know the names of the Doe Defendants at the moment. AT&T removed the lawsuit on September 23, 201, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company argues that the removal is proper because the complaint involves a federal question for it involves claims and issues that arise under, are intertwined with, derive from, and require application and interpretation of the federal Labor Management Relations Act. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-04749 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Roberta D. Perkins, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation 1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 Telephone: (510) 337-1001 Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 E-mail: drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net rperkins@unioncounsel.net - and - Miles E. Locker, Esq. LOCKER FOLBERG LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 835 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 962-1626 Facsimile: (415) 962-1628 E-mail: mlocker@lockerfolberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Michael D. Mandel, Esq. Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 Email: mkane@mcguirewoods.com mmandel@mcguirewoods.com skim@mcguirewoods.com COMMERCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Suit Over California Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa Calvo-Perez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-04764 (N.D. Calif., September 23, 2011) challenges the actions of Commercial Recovery with regard to its unlawful and surreptitious recording of telephone calls between it and Ms. Calvo-Perez, in violation of California law. The Plaintiff asserts that in May 2011, the Defendant began telephoning her in an effort to try to convince her to pay an alleged debt. She alleges that the Defendant surreptitiously monitored, eavesdropped on, recorded, or made other unauthorized connections to the conversations between them, which took place and was accomplished through a machine, instrument, or contrivance, or any other manner prohibited by the California Penal Code. Ms. Calvo-Perez is a resident of the city of San Francisco, California. The Defendant is a Texas corporation and conducts business within the state of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Robert L. Hyde, Esq. David James McGlothlin, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com bob@westcoastlitigation.com david@westcoastlitigation.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Tosses Gender Discrimination Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a federal appeals court's rejection of class action status in a gender discrimination case against Costco Wholesale Corp., which is based on a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, is a victory for employers, but only a partial one, legal experts say. The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the first major class action case to be decided since the Supreme Court's June decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vs. Betty Dukes et al., where the high court ruled against a proposed class of some 1.5 million members. Employers had hoped that in light of Wal-Mart, the 9th Circuit would dismiss Shirley "Rae" Ellis et al. vs. Costco Wholesale Corp. While it did reverse the lower court's grant of class certification, the appeals court remanded the case for further consideration, thus keeping it alive, observers say. Kevin M. McGinty, a member of law firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo P.C. in Boston, said the ruling in Ellis "is typical, I think, of what you'll be seeing in a lot of circumstances, where cases that were certified (as class actions) prior to the Wal-Mart decision are sent back down" to the district court to apply the principles set by the Supreme Court. Not just from an employment law perspective, but from "a class action standpoint, it's an interesting and potentially significant case as the lower courts try to flesh out and apply what the Supreme Court tried to do," said Sean P. Wajert, a partner with Dechert L.L.P. in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs accused Issaquah, Wash.-based Costco of promotional practices that discriminated against women. The district court issued its decision in the case in 2007, before the Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart. "This complicated case requires us to consider a number of issues relating to class verification," the three-judge 9th Circuit panel said in its unanimous Sept. 16 ruling. "Several of these issues have recently been clarified by the Supreme Court's decision" in Wal-Mart. Under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, standards that are required for cases to become certified as class actions include whether there are questions of law common to the class, and whether the claims of the representative parties are typical of the class as a whole. In its ruling in Ellis, the appeals court said the district court "abused its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard in its analyses of commonality and typicality" under Rule 23(a). "Accordingly, we vacate the district court's findings on those issues and remand for application of the correct standard," it ruled (see related story). "The most significant takeaway is that the Wal-Mart decision is going to make it very difficult of for nationwide class actions in employment law to proceed," said D. Gregory Valenza, a partner with San Francisco-based Shaw Valenza L.L.P. "It's quite clear that the nationwide promotion practices of Costco are not going to be able to be litigated in a single class action." Anthony J. Oncidi, a partner with Proskauer Rose L.L.P. in Los Angeles, said he was pleased "that the 9th Circuit heard the Supreme Court loud and clear and applied across the board the most important aspects of the Wal-Mart decision in the similarly situated Costco litigation, so we now have an important holding from the 9th Circuit" on the issues of typicality and commonality in class action suits. "It's comforting to see that the 9th Circuit does accept that the Supreme Court has fundamentally changed the analysis that the district courts have to go through in California in the 9th Circuit," said Marcia E. Goodman, a partner with Mayer Brown L.L.P. in Chicago. However, Rae T. Vann, general counsel for the Washington-based Equal Employment Advisory Council, which submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Costco, said she is "somewhat disappointed" by the decision. "I still think that the case should have been decertified altogether. I don't see how the Costco plaintiffs can establish common issues of fact or law that are subject to single, classwide remedy, which is now the standard post-Dukes," she said. However, "I think it's good that the court clearly now has directed the district court to conduct the type of rigorous analysis that's always been called for, within the parameters set by the Supreme Court," Ms. Vann said. While his overall reaction is positive, Gregory V. Mersol, a partner with Baker & Hostetler L.L.P. in Cleveland, said the downside is "they remanded the case to the trial court for a second bite at the apple." Brad Seligman, executive director of the Berkeley, Calif.,-based Impact Fund, represented the Ellis and Wal-Mart plaintiffs. The plaintiffs knew that Ellis would have to be reconsidered "because the (Supreme Court) changed the rules" and asked that the case be remanded "for consideration in light of Dukes." He said he is "quite confident" that Ellis will meet the standards needed to establish a class action. However, Costco attorney Gerald L. Maatman Jr., a partner with Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P. in Chicago, said, "Plaintiffs' theory met with a horrendous loss at the 9th Circuit." While the 9th Circuit had no choice but remand the case, the Supreme Court's guidelines in Wal-Mart "essentially doom any chances the plaintiffs would have of moving forward on the theories both as to the facts and as to the new legal standards," he said. Separately, Business Insurance's Ms. Greenwald reports that major points in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in Shirley "Rae" Ellis et al. vs. Costco Wholesale Corp., which overturned a lower court ruling granting class certification to plaintiffs, included: * The district court "abused its discretion by applying the wrong legal standards" in determining whether there were questions of law common to the class and whether the representative parties' claims were typical of the class as a whole. The issues were remanded to the district court. * The 9th Circuit vacated the district court's certification of the class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which primarily is limited to classes seeking injunctive relief. It said the district court must consider certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(3), which is not limited to injunctive relief, but is a tougher standard, because plaintiffs must prove that class issues predominate in the case and that class action is the superior way of handling it. * The 9th Circuit ruled that plaintiff Elaine Sasaki, a current employee, is an adequate class representative as a current employee who continues to be denied promotion. But it said two plaintiffs who have left the company -- Ms. Ellis and Leah Horstman -- were not, because they had no incentive to pursue injunctive relief. The issue in their case was remanded. EASTMAN KODAK: Sued in Calif. Over All-In-One Inkjet Printers ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action claims that Eastman Kodak failed to tell consumers that its All- In-One inkjet printers deplete color ink reserves, even on pages that contain only black text. A copy of the Complaint in Apostol v. Eastman Kodak Company, et al., Case No. 30-2011-00510342 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.) (Dunning, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/26/ink.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Strange, Esq. Gretchen Carpenter, Esq. John P. Kristensen, Esq. STRANGE & CARPENTER 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-5055 E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net gcarpenter@strangendcarpenter.com jkristensen@strangendcarpenter.com - and - Brett Shainfeld, Esq. Jessica Anvar, Esq. SHAINFELD & ANVAR, PC 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: 424-901-8501 E-mail: brett@shainfeld-anvar.com jessica@shainfeld-anvar.com GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ Dennis Rice, On Behalf of himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Goodrich Corporation, Marshall O. Larsen, Carolyn Corvi, Harris E. Deloach, Jr., William R. Holland, Alfred M. Rankin, Jr., Diane Creel, James W. Griffith, John P. Jumper, Lloyd W. Newton, United Technologies Corporation, Charlotte Lucas Corporation, Case No. 652619/2011 (N.Y. Sup Ct., September 23, 2011) is a shareholder class action brought to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the publicly-owned shares of Goodrich common stock by United Technologies Corporation. The Plaintiff contends that the consideration offered in the Proposed Transaction is unfair and grossly inadequate because the intrinsic value of Goodrich's common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered, given the Company's significant growth, anticipated operating results, and future profitability. Mr. Rice is a shareholder of Goodrich common stock. Goodrich is a New York corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Goodrich, a Fortune 500 company, is a global supplier of systems and services to aerospace, defense and homeland security markets. United Technologies is a diversified company providing high technology products and services to the global aerospace and building industries. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Nicholas W. Moyne, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com nmoyne@faruqilaw.com INTESA SANPAOLO: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Cohen, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that an Italian consumer group class action suit against Intesa Sanpaolo SpA on its overdraft fees can go ahead, an Italian court ruled on Sept. 19. In an e-mailed statement Italian consumer group Altroconsumo said that a court in Turin ruled that the class action suit against one of Italy's largest lenders can proceed. Altroconsumo filed a lawsuit against Intesa Sanpaolo for ovedraft fees charged to some Intesa Sanpaolo clients after August 2009. The Turin court has now to schedule the timing of the hearings as well as organize the participation of the Intesa Sanpaolo customers who were forced to pay high overdraft fees since mid-2009, the Italian association said in the statement. The Italian class-action law was approved by the country's lawmakers in 2009 and was effective from January 2010. A class action lawsuit is one in which one party or a limited number of parties sue on behalf of a larger group to which the parties belong. Intesa Sanpaolo declined to comment on the potential damages from the lawsuit. LEXISNEXIS: Pre-Certification Discovery Process Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Sarah L. Balter at Courthouse News Service reports that a hearing to discuss the pre-trial progress of a class action against LexisNexis Courtlink and Fulton County ended with a decision to table consideration of outstanding motions until the pre- certification discovery process is complete. The lawsuit revolves around the issue of whether the Fulton County court has the authority to mandate the use of LexisNexis' e-filing system or else lose access to the court. Among those in attendance at the Sept. 21 hearing at the DeKalb County Superior Court was Steven J. Newton, attorney for The Best Jewelry Manufacturing Co. and Kenneth Clowdus, administrator for the estate of Kenneth Larry Clowdus, Fulton County attorney William Miles, and William K. Whitner, attorney for LexisNexis. Its intent was to discuss the results of discovery exchanges that have occurred in the slow-moving case over the past few months. However, as the discussion got under way, it quickly became clear that the process was far from complete. Mr. Whitner claimed he is still awaiting feedback on submissions to the Best Jewelry-Clowdus team, while the plaintiffs' attorneys complained of receiving Fulton County's documents literally days before the hearing. "We got some 20,000 documents from Fulton County only three days ago. Obviously, we haven't had the chance to look through [that many] documents, but we feel that with those documents we may have enough to go forward with class certification," said Irwin Stolz, Mr. Newton's co-council. Mr. Stolz said Mr. Miles filed "various and sundry little motions" that had done little but delayed the case. As a case in point, he pointed to Mr. Miles' intention to file a motion for dismissal of any damage liability against Fulton County that very day. Mr. Stolz asked DeKalb Superior Court Judge Clarence Seeliger to set a deadline first for class pre-certification discovery before starting merit discovery, after which LexisNexis owner Reed Elsevier and Fulton County might file their merit-based motions. Mr. Miles insisted that the motion to dismiss damages didn't involve merits. "It has to do with the fact that [Fulton County is] entitled to sovereign immunity as a matter of law," Mr. Miles said. "It doesn't matter how true their facts are, or how badly we acted, we're still entitled to sovereign immunity against damages." He inferred that the sovereignty right negated the need for a class action, stating that "it wouldn't matter if it was one person, two people, or a thousand". Mr. Miles also anticipates filing for summary judgment in the future. "I'm not going to address that yet," said Judge Seeliger, after Mr. Stolz countered that Fulton County has no immunity for violating the law. Mr. Whitner agreed with Mr. Miles, stating that a class action in this case was not appropriate, and responded to Newton co-council Shuli Green's on-the-spot request for facts that might preclude class certification. "Our position is these interrogatories are premature. We have not yet seen [Best Jewelry-Clowdus'] motion for class certification. It would be inadequate to ask us at this time to answer with facts," said Mr. Whitner. The Best Jewelry-Clowdus team has until December 1 to formally file for class certification, and to submit requests for any further discovery needed. The parties will have until February 1 to complete the class certification discovery process, after which the certification hearing will be scheduled. Judge Seeliger also agreed to delay discovery on merits until certification discovery is completed. NATIONAL MILK: Limits Production to Raise Milk Price, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Edwards, Georgia Browne and Torah Montessori School, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working Together; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.; Land O'Lakes, Inc.; Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.; and Agri-Mark, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv- 04766 (N.D. Calif., September 26, 2011) alleges that CWT and its members have taken coordinated efforts over the past eight years to limit the production of raw farm milk through premature "herd retirements" in order to increase the price of raw farm milk, which is used to supply milk and other fresh milk products to consumers. By manipulating the supply of raw farm milk through herd retirement, price competition has been suppressed and prices have been supported at artificially high levels throughout the United States of America, the Plaintiffs allege. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit for violation of state antitrust statutes and the common law of unjust enrichment. Mr. Edwards is a resident of San Francisco, California, while Ms. Browne is a resident of Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Torah Montessori is an Illinois nonprofit corporation located in Chicago. The Plaintiffs say that they purchased milk and other fresh milk products during the Class Period and was injured as a result of the Defendants' illegal conduct. NMPF was established in 1916 and is based in Arlington, Virginia. The members of NMPF's cooperatives, which are over 40,000 dairy producers, make the majority of the nation's milk supply. CWT "is a voluntary, producer-funded national program developed by NMPF, to strengthen and stabilize milk prices." DFA has its headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, and is the largest dairy farmer cooperative in the country. Land O'Lakes is the second largest cooperative in the nation. Dairylea is headquartered in Syracuse, New York, and is the fifth largest U.S. dairy cooperative. Agri-Mark is located in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and markets more than 300 million gallons of milk each year for more than 1,300 producer members. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. George W. Sampson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com george@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 820 North Boulevard, Suite B Oak Park, IL 60301 Telephone: (708) 776-5604 Facsimile: (708) 776-5601 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com NONNI'S FOODS: Sued in Calif. Over Biscotti "All Natural" Label --------------------------------------------------------------- Tamar Davis Larsen and Kimberly S. Sethavanish, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Nonni's Foods, LLC and Chipita America, Inc., Case. No. 4:11-cv-04758 (N.D. Calif., September 23, 2011) accuses Nonni's Foods of packaging, marketing and selling its biscotti products as being "All Natural" despite the fact that they contain one or more ingredients that are recognized as synthetic chemical or ingredient by federal regulations. Nonni's Foods and Chipita America misrepresent their biscotti as all natural even though the cookies contain synthetic ingredients, the class claims in federal court. While the "All Natural" biscotti products' labels did disclose that they contained cocoa processed with alkali, glycerin, monocalcium phosphate, sodium acid pyrophosphate, monoglycerides, and diglycerides, the labels did not disclose that these ingredients were synthetic, the Plaintiffs contend. Ms. Larsen is a resident of Berkeley, California. Ms. Sethavanish is a resident of Windsor, California. The Plaintiffs assert that they try to avoid consuming foods that are not natural, and are willing to and have paid a premium for foods that are all natural and have refrained from buying their counterparts that were not all natural. Chipita America, Inc., formerly Nonni's Food Company, Inc., was incorporated in the state of Florida, and maintains its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A copy of the Complaint in Larsen, et al. v. Nonni's Foods, LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-04758 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/26/biscotti.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, #400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 392-8801 Facsimile: (310) 278-5938 E-mail: jlspielberg@jlsp.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C. 10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 836-6000 Facsimile: (310) 836-6010 E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com - and - Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. Wyatt A. Lison, Esq. STEMBER FEINSTEDV DOYLE & PAYNE LLC Allegheny Building, 17th Floor 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Facsimile: (412) 281-1007 E-mail: ikravec@stemberfeinstein.com wlison@stemberfeinstein.com NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Court OKs Immigrant Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that five years after the Nova Scotia government took control of a problem-plagued immigration program, a court approved a settlement on Sept. 26 that offers $25 million in compensation to immigrants who say the program failed to deliver what it promised. Ward Branch, the lawyer leading a class-action lawsuit against the province, said the deal represents the largest settlement of its kind in Nova Scotia history. "We're really pleased with the way the government responded once we started the litigation to make it easy for people to get their money back," Mr. Branch told Nova Scotia Supreme Court Judge John Murphy. Under the settlement agreement, the province's Office of Immigration is offering 364 immigrants up to $75,000 each in compensation. So far, about 60% of those people have been contacted by Mr. Branch's law firm. The settlement can be scuttled if 50 or more people object before Jan. 5, but Mr. Branch said that was unlikely to happen. The program started in 2003 under the former Conservative government and was operated by Cornwallis Financial Corp. But the Tories assumed responsibility in 2006 and stopped accepting applications for the program's so-called investment stream after problems began to surface. Typically, immigrants in that stream paid Cornwallis about $100,000 to take part. In exchange, the immigrants were told they would be given a middle-management job placement in the province, and a portion of their fee would be returned to them as a salary. However, some of the 790 immigrants who paid into the program said they didn't get the job experience they were promised. Today, only 300 of the participants are still in the province. A proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in December 2009 on behalf of Peter King, who moved to Halifax from the United Kingdom in April 2006. In a statement of claim, Mr. King alleges he paid the fee and applied unsuccessfully for a number of jobs before he gave up and moved to British Columbia, where he still resides. In 2007 and 2008, the province offered refunds to participants, but Mr. King couldn't qualify because the money went only to those who had lived in Nova Scotia for a minimum of 12 months. The provincial government has already paid out about $38 million in refunds. Mr. King's class-action was certified and settled during the Sept. 26 court hearing. The judge was quick to approve the agreement: "I'm satisfied that the parties have approached this in good faith," Judge Murphy said. Elizabeth Mills, a spokeswoman for the Office of Immigration, said the province's immigrant nominee program has been a success, but the so-called investment stream went off the rails. "We have learned that this type of program . . . with passive investment streams are very difficult to manage and difficult to oversee," she said outside the courtroom. "It is not an area that we would go again." Ms. Mills said a total of C$30 million has been set aside to cover the costs of the settlement agreement. That figure includes administrative fees and interest. The members of the class-action include 105 immigrants who did find work with mentor firms, and another 259 who never got the chance, Ms. Mills said. One immigrant has dropped out of the group, saying he was satisfied with the program. Mr. Branch said those who did receive a salary under the program will have that amount deducted from their $75,000 settlement. As well, the legal fee paid to Mr. Branch's law firm will be between 15 and 20 per cent of each check, depending on how many immigrants come forward. "The response to the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive," Mr. Branch told the court. "I commend the defendants for not pushing back on this . . . Class-actions tend to be lumbering beasts." SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Bay Street Firms File Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that two big institutions are taking aim at Bay Street's largest firms with a C$5.8-billion proposed class action lawsuit that alleges Sino- Forest Corp. and several of its key advisors profited from misrepresentations about the company's financial condition. Northwest & Ethical Investment LP, which manages Ethical Funds, and Comite Syndical National de Retraite Batirente Inc., a Quebec- based labor-sponsored retirement plan, are suing Sino-Forest, its auditors and investment bankers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's securities between Aug. 17, 2004, and June 2, 2011. The proposed class action is unique both from the broad list of powerful Bay Street financial institutions and advisors named as defendants, and from the heft of the two representative plaintiffs. NEI v. Sino-Forest The C$5.8-billion class action lawsuit targets some of Bay Street's biggest firms "This is the next level in securities class actions," says one veteran Bay Street litigator. "It's like crossing the Rubicon because it's the first time that one of the big boy heavyweights -- in the form of a large mainstream fund company -- has sued the Street." Class actions are usually filed in the name of small investors. NEI, which manages C$4.7-billion in assets, is 50% owned by Desjardins Group and 50% owned by Provincial Credit Union Centrals. The scope of action is massive. The defendants in the multi- billion dollar lawsuit include Sino-Forest's auditors, Ernst & Young LLP and BDO Ltd., 15 firms that underwrote Sino-Forest market offerings, several forestry consulting firms, and 20 directors and senior officers of the company. Shares of Sino-Forest, Canada's leading forestry stock for several years, fell by 70% after Muddy Waters LLC released a report in June questioning the integrity of the company's asset valuation, revenues, business practices and financial reporting. Late last month, the Ontario Securities Commission ordered that trading of Sino-Forest's securities be suspended, stating that the company and some officer and directors appeared to be engaging in conduct "they know or reasonably ought to know perpetuate a fraud on any person or company." If the Sino-Forest allegations are proven to be true, legal experts have said there is little recourse for investors to get their money back aside from bringing claims against the vast network of bankers, auditors and others that helped the company raise almost C$3-billion on Bay St. "One of the things that I think is interesting is the fact that there are major players in the financial industry on both sides of this," said Cristie Ford, an assistant professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia. "In a financial market like Canada's, where so many shareholders are institutional investors . . . I think it's appropriate for them to be looking after their constituencies' interests in this way." NEI and Batirente allege that the defendants fundamentally misrepresented the scope of Sino-Forest's business operations and materially overstated its assets and financial results. "NEI Investments has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of our investors and in commencing this action we believe we are acting strongly to uphold the integrity of the investment industry," Bob Walker, vice president, Ethical Funds, NEI Investments said in a news release. NEI and Batirente, working with British Columbia Investment Management Corp., had shown their concern with the company's governance even before the explosive allegations came to light. The two filed a shareholder proposal in January encouraging the company to adopt a revised majority voting policy. While the proposal was withdrawn when the company agreed to make the change, both NEI and Batirente withheld their votes for most of the company directors at Sino-Forest's last annual general meeting, in May. On June 8, just six days after Muddy Waters research analyst Carson Block released his report, Toronto's Rochon Geneva filed a shareholder lawsuit in Ontario. The next, Siskinds LLP of London, Ontario filed a suit in Quebec Superior Court and followed up with a similar filing in Ontario on June 20. It remains unclear who will have carriage of the proceedings. The prospect of a nasty carriage fight among the law firms looms. Quebec is a first-to-file jurisdiction, meaning that the plaintiffs' firm that files first in that province, which is Siskinds in this case, is the one likely to get carriage there -- and the biggest slice of the fee pie -- from proceedings against Sino-Forest. STATE OF OHIO: AG Wants Unclaimed Funds Class Action Settled ------------------------------------------------------------ Jenn Strathman, writing for newsnet5.com, reports that the interest earned by unclaimed funds has been the center of debate for several years in a lawsuit involving the state of Ohio. For seven years, the state has fought a class action lawsuit over interest that unclaimed funds earn. Now, the Ohio Attorney General says this lawsuit may be wrapped up soon, which could put more money back in your pocket. "Everybody pays interest, so the state should not be exempt from that," consumer Kathy Tomaro said. The state holds unclaimed funds from dormant checking and savings accounts, old rent and utility deposits, uncashed checks, and uncashed insurance policies. The state of Ohio earns interest on the money, but when you claim the money, you don't get that interest. An Ohio man thought it was wrong and filed a class action lawsuit in 2004. The state has been fighting that suit ever since. The Ohio Supreme Court even said consumers are owed this money, but that decision didn't end the court battle. During our investigation last November, the Commerce Department didn't have much to say. The Commerce Department is represented by the State Attorney General, which puts the AG in an unusual position since he also represents the interests of the consumer. Almost a year into his term, Attorney General Mike DeWine is bringing a new opinion to the case. "It's a case that we inherited. The law says we represent the state, and all state agencies. They are a client so we have to represent them in court. We certainly will do that in this case. But, the courts have made it clear that the game is over," Mr. DeWine said. It's a big development for consumers especially considering since the man defending the state is saying it. "I hope it gets settled very soon," Mr. DeWine added. The AG says the courts have made it clear consumers have a right to this money, but how will the state find the money to pay? The court estimated the payout at $74 million, and that was a few years ago. "The state will simply have to find the money. The court tells you you have to do something, you gotta do it," Mr. DeWine said. It's unclear when the case will be settled. Mr. DeWine only said "fairly soon." SOUTH AFRICAN MINING COMPANIES: Retired Miners Mull Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dineo Matomela, writing for Business Report, reports that more than 300,000 retired gold mine workers, who contracted silicosis or tuberculosis (TB) during or after their employment in the industry, were pushing for the start of a multibillion-rand class action next year, lawyer Richard Spoor said on Sept. 23. He said the class action would be against AngloGold Ashanti, Barrick Gold Africa, DRDGold, Gold Fields, Harmony Gold, JCI Gold, Randgold & Exploration, Rand Uranium, African Rainbow Minerals and Pamodzi Gold. The retired miners from across South Africa and neighboring countries could receive billions in compensation. The case would represent all employees who contracted silicosis in local mines from the 1950s onwards, as well as the widows and estates of workers who contracted tuberculosis. Mr. Spoor said it was standard practice for the companies to dismiss workers once they had contracted silicosis. This was most unfortunate as workers then lost their income and incurred medical debts they could in no way afford. "South African mining companies are responsible for the burden of the staggering number of TB cases in southern Africa, they are also responsible for silicosis among employees." Mr. Spoor, who has teamed up with US-based firm Motley Rice, said NGOs based in the areas of the miners' origins had been providing information for the "mammoth undertaking". "Statistics show that the mining industry has not protected its employees. We are doing this (class action) because it is the only way that we can address legacy issues." Mr. Spoor said there was currently a process of clarification under way, as the lawyers were seeking confirmation from the courts on whether they could proceed with the action. On Sept. 21, a group of 450 former gold mine workers lodged papers in the London High Court claiming Anglo American South Africa did not properly protect them from dust and that this led to them contracting silicosis or TB. Earlier this year, the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of an AngloGold Ashanti employee, Thembekile Mankayi, which allowed him to sue the Anglo American group company for contracting silicosis. The ruling has opened the way for retired mineworkers to sue companies for contracting lung diseases on the mines. Analysts said that the judge on the Mankayi case acknowledged the right of the individuals to lodge claims and also noted that the compensation measures in the mining industry were not sufficient. In 2001, Gencor, a South African company that took over some of Cape plc's South African asbestos operations when Cape left the country in 1979, had to compensate 7,500 claimants who contracted asbestos-related diseases. In May, a judge decided that mines would have to assume responsibility for deficits in the Compensation Fund for miners with pulmonary disease. UNITED STATES: DHS Chooses Riggs-Abney to Defend Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Ellis, Nolan Clay and Robby Trammell, writing for NewsOK.com, report that The Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison & Lewis law firm was selected in 2008 to defend the Department of Human Services in a class-action lawsuit. Making the choice was DHS Director Howard Hendrick and the DHS general counsel. Riggs-Abney is a large, politically connected law firm with offices in Oklahoma City, Tulsa and Denver. It gained attention in the past for helping represent Oklahoma in a lawsuit against the tobacco industry, for which it was awarded $30 million in legal fees. The firm, which includes former Attorney General Mike Turpen, has several members who are well-known contributors to political campaigns. Law firm members involved in the suit have contributed more than $100,000 to various candidates and political action committees since the start of the 2006 election cycle. Those donations included more than $21,000 to former Attorney General Drew Edmondson's 2006 re-election campaign and his failed 2010 gubernatorial campaign. Those members gave $2,950 to current Attorney General Scott Pruitt's 2010 campaign. State agencies are not required to solicit bids or proposals for outside legal services contracts. Instead, they must select attorneys from a long list of approved attorneys maintained by the attorney general's office. The DHS general counsel, Charles Waters, said he recommended DHS seek outside legal help because of the great complexity of the class-action lawsuit. A child advocacy group called Children's Rights of New York is alleging that Oklahoma's system of caring for abused and neglected children is so bad that children are being injured and otherwise harmed while in shelters and foster homes. The selection of Riggs-Abney had nothing to do with political connections, Mr. Waters said. "Never had a conversation with Drew Edmondson about this case," he said. Instead, he said Riggs-Abney was selected because it is a large firm capable of handling complex litigation and because Bob Nance is one of its attorneys. Mr. Nance has a wealth of experience as a federal trial attorney and has engaged in major class-action litigation involving state institutions, Mr. Waters said. Nobody has more experience handling class-action lawsuits in Oklahoma than Nance, Mr. Hendrick said. "This wasn't a political deal at all," Mr. Nance said. "No political contribution any of us made or did not make had anything to do with us getting this piece of work." In fact, Mr. Nance said he is a Democrat and Oklahoma State Cowboys fan, while Mr. Waters is a Republican and Oklahoma Sooners fan. Mr. Nance said he worked on several class-action lawsuits while an assistant attorney general. Those included cases that dealt with state prisons, juvenile institutions and institutions for individuals with mental disabilities. Mr. Waters said Children's Rights has a history of going from state to state and overwhelming poorly staffed child welfare legal departments and attorneys general offices with voluminous court filings and document requests. Mr. Waters said that has led to forced settlements. Mr. Waters said he thought it was important to bring in top quality private attorneys early in the litigation to try to prevent that from happening in Oklahoma. Riggs-Abney attorneys have been charging the state $185 to $200 an hour, and providing additional discounts on some bills. Mr. Waters said that is relatively cheap for the expertise they provide. Mr. Waters said Children's Rights attorneys will demand the state pay their legal fees -- at rates of $400 to $500 an hour -- if the group wins the lawsuit at trial or the case is settled. Mr. Hendrick has said the state will not settle. The trial is set to begin in Tulsa next year. A settlement or loss by DHS could force the state to pay millions of dollars more each year to make changes in the foster care system. Payments also could go to those who claim they were hurt while in DHS foster care. YAZ BIRTH CONTROL PILLS: Lieff Cabraser Comments on FDA Warning --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a statement that the FDA remains concerned, but has not yet reached a conclusion, about the potential increased risk of blood clots from Drospirenone- containing birth control pills such as YAZ, YASMIN, BEYAZ, and OCELLA, among others. Preliminary results from an FDA-sponsored study of 800,000 women taking birth control pills shows that there is a 1.5 increased risk among Drospirenone-containing pill users. To address these concerns, the FDA has scheduled an important meeting for December 8, 2011. The FDA will hear testimony concerning these studies and the safety of these medications. The meeting is open to the public. Commenting on the FDA warning, Wendy Fleishman, a prominent personal injury attorney with the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, stated, "Too many active and healthy women have suddenly died from, or suffered severe, life-threatening blood clots allegedly caused by taking Drospirenone-containing birth control pills, like YAZ. We are wholly supportive of birth control choices for young women, but women need to be accurately informed of the potential risks when they take a birth control pill. We hope that the FDA's review will cause Bayer to take the responsible course of action and fully disclose the dangers this drug poses." Ms. Fleishman represents women across America in Yaz injury lawsuits against Bayer. The lawyer may be reached at: Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com ZIPREALTY: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations -------------------------------------------------- Paul T. Rosynsky, writing for Oakland Tribune, reports that the state Department of Industrial Relations filed a $17 million lawsuit on Sept. 26 against Emeryville-based ZipRealty, claiming the firm has failed to properly compensate its employees since at least 2006. The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, is based on three class-action lawsuits filed against ZipRealty and complaints waged by four employees working for the realtor's Kern County office. ZipRealty settled the class-action lawsuits for an unspecified sum and was forced to pay its Kern County-based workers $330,000 in past wages and penalties. The state's lawsuit hopes to recoup past wages not paid to other employees who have not joined the class-action lawsuits or who have not filed formal complaints with the state. "It is our job to provide basic protections for all employees working in California," said Christine Baker, acting director of the Department of Industrial Relations. "Wage compression and violations of the minimum labor standards are now occurring in a wide variety of occupations, even affecting employees outside traditional low-wage occupations." According to the lawsuit, ZipRealty repeatedly refused to pay its real estate agents overtime, neglected to pay them for hours spent in mandatory training seminars, failed to pay a minimum wage and refused to pay employees who are fired or laid-off a final paycheck that fully covers the hours they worked. The claims cover a time period ranging from 2006 until Sept. 26. Talia DeBene, a spokeswoman for ZipRealty, declined to comment. The company has argued in past cases that it did not have to pay its agents a minimum wage or overtime because it considered agents "outside sales persons" who work on a contract basis. But a federal judge ruled earlier this month that the agents are employees required to receive minimum wage and overtime. "We learned in the course of the Bakersfield case that ZipRealty real estate agents frequently received no pay at all," said Labor Commissioner Julie Su. "The lawsuit filed today seeks to remedy the multiple violations statewide and to get these workers the wages they earned." How ZipRealty would pay its damages should the state win its suit remains to be seen. The company has reported annual income losses every year since 2006, according to its 2009 annual report. In 2009, ZipRealty lost almost $13 million, the report states. Nevertheless, the state believes it's important to set an example by showing that all firms in the state are responsible for paying its employees properly. "This enforcement is important not just for employees, but for hardworking employers who shouldn't have to compete against lawbreakers," Ms. Su said. "We want the message to be clear." ZST DIGITAL: Deadline to Seek Dismissal of "Scott" Suit on Nov. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The deadline for ZST Digital Networks, Inc., and other defendants to file an answer to, or move to dismiss, the securities lawsuit filed by Robert Scott is on November 4, 2011, according to the Company's September 22, 2011, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. The Company and several of its directors and officers have been named as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint was filed on April 25, 2011, and is captioned Robert Scott v. ZST Digital Networks, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated Federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects, performance, and internal controls. Named in the complaint as individual defendants are Zhong Bo, the Company's CEO and Chairman of the Board; Zhong Lin, COO and a member of Board; and John Chen and Zeng Yun Su, two former CFOs. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the Company pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the Company's October 20, 2009 public offering (the "Registration Statement"), and claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period October 20, 2009, to April 21, 2011. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement contained falsely stated revenue for fiscal 2008 and the first six months of fiscal 2009 and that the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 ("2009 Form 10-K") provided false revenue amounts for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. In support of its allegations, the complaint, inter alia, references an April 21, 2011, report published by an online financial news Web site entitled http://seekingalpha.comthat reported that documents filed by the Company's subsidiary Zhengzhou Shenyang Technology Company Limited with the State Administration of Industry and Commerce ("SAIC") in the People's Republic of China (the "PRC") reported revenue amounts for the applicable periods that were substantially lower than revenue reported in the Company's Registration Statement and 2009 Form 10-K. The plaintiff has also asserted claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) against the underwriters of the Company's public offering, who are also named as defendants to the action. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at trial including interest, reasonable litigation costs and expenses, rescission damages, and such further relief as the Court may deem proper. On July 13, 2011, the Court entered an order appointing J. Malcolm Gray as lead plaintiff. On August 22, 2011, the Court entered a scheduling order whereby lead plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, if any, on September 23, 2011, and the Company and the underwriters of the Company's public offering shall answer or move to dismiss the amended complaint by November 4, 2011. If the Company and/or the underwriters file motions to dismiss the amended complaint, lead plaintiff shall file his opposition to such motions by December 16, 2011, and the Company and/or the underwriters shall file their reply briefs in further support of their motions by January 17, 2012. The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against each of the lawsuits. However, no assurance can be given that these matters will be resolved in the Company's favor. ********* 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 * * *