/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111005.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 5, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 197 Headlines ABT BUILDING: Property Owners May File Trimboard Claims AMERIFIT: May Face Suit Over False Claims on Culturelle Products ANZ: Overdraft Fee Class Action Hearing Begins BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowner Protests Over Loan Modification BEST BUY: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit BEST BUY: Fairness Hearing in Discrimination Suit on Nov. 9 CADBURY HOLDINGS: Oct. 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set CAL-MAINE FOODS: Litigation Over Egg Prices Remains Pending CHAUS BERNARD: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Camuto Merger Proposal DEAN FOODS: Sued Over False Misrepresentations on Horizon Milk DJSP ENTERPRISES: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action FULL TILT: Merchant Law Group Launches Class Action HEART CHECK: Sued Over Sale and Financing of Imaging Scans IMVU INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Unfair Trade Practices LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Unjust Enrichment Claims Can Proceed LEXINGTON LAW: Settles Credit Repair Class Action for $12.5 Mil. NARA BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement PENSON WORLDWIDE: October 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Accused of Violating California Labor Code SINOTECH ENERGY: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action STATE OF MICHIGAN: Judge Certifies ABA Therapy Class Action STATE OF MICHIGAN: Welfare Recipients File Class Action STATE OF WASHINGTON: Immigrants' Suit Gets Partial Certification TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Action Over Actos Cancer Risk Underway TARANTO GROUP: Court Certifies Class Action Over Junk Faxes TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Chrome 6 Exposure Class Suits Still Pending ********* ABT BUILDING: Property Owners May File Trimboard Claims ------------------------------------------------------- The attorneys working with Class Action.org would like to hear from property owners who experienced problems with TrimBoard, a manufactured or composite wood trim product also sold under the names Pro Trim and Choice Trim. TrimBoard is manufactured by ABT Building Products Corporations (ABTCO), which is owned by the Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP), and, according to allegations, contains a defect which can lead to a number of problems, including premature failure of the product under normal conditions. If you experienced problems, including swelling, rotting or decay, with the LP and ABTCO TrimBoard, you may have legal recourse. To find out if can seek financial compensation for expenses associated with your TrimBoard problems, visit http://www.classaction.org/trimboard.htmland complete the "Report a Complaint" form for a no cost, no obligation review of your claim. TrimBoard is marketed as a low cost trim for exterior use which is said to be "easier to use" and "more durable" than other trim products. However, the ABTCO and LP TrimBoard is allegedly unsuitable for exterior use, as it tends to absorb moisture under normal conditions, which can affect the longevity, stability and appearance of the wood trim product. Furthermore, it has been alleged that this tendency to absorb moisture can also cause a number of other TrimBoard problems, including swelling, decay and rotting which, in turn, could allow mold, mildew, fungi or insect infestation to develop. The ABTCO and LP TrimBoard wood trim product comes in a variety of different widths and can be used around windows and doors, at corners of structures as corner board, as fascia or soffit near the roofline, as well as decorative trim on rail posts, columns and along porches or stair stringers. The LP and ABTCO TrimBoard is made of wood fibers, waxes and glues and has a paper surface which looks smooth or embossed with a cedar-like texture. If you have noticed TrimBoard problems with this product, you may have legal recourse in light of allegations that that wood trim is defective and fails prematurely. To learn more about your legal rights in regard to problems with LP and ABTOC TrimBoard, visit Class Action.org today for a free evaluation of your claim. About Class Action.org Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the United States. Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of defective products, drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site. Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer rights. AMERIFIT: May Face Suit Over False Claims on Culturelle Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Is Culturelle not working as advertised? Have consumers paid too much for these products? Were the Culturelle probiotics sold under false and misleading claims? These allegations are currently being reviewed by the attorneys working with Class Action.org who are investigating a potential lawsuit on behalf of consumers who purchased these probiotic supplements. If you bought a Culturelle branded product, you may be able to seek recovery for the cost of your product, in light of allegations that Culturelle is not working as advertised. To find out if you are eligible, visit http://www.classaction.org/culturelle.html today and complete the "Report a Complaint" form for a no cost, no obligation review of your claim. Marketed and sold by Amerifit, Culturelle is a popular line of probiotic supplement which contains a good form of bacteria known as Lactobacillus GG. According to the manufacturer's claims, the products boost overall digestive health by helping with bloating, gas and infrequent bouts of diarrhea and restoring the natural balance of bacteria in the digestive tract. The products offer another Culturelle benefit, according to the manufacturer's claims, in that they also support the immune system. Products sold under these claims include the following: Culturelle Natural Health and Wellness; Culturelle for Kids; Culturelle Dairy Free Health and Wellness; and Culturelle Digestive Health. Consumers who purchased any of these Culturelle products may be able to participate in a lawsuit to seek recovery for the cost of their supplement in light of allegations that Culturelle is not working as advertised and was sold under false and misleading claims. The attorneys working with Class Action.org would like to hear from anyone who purchased these products, particularly those who found Culturelle not to be working as advertised, to assist in their investigation. To learn more about the potential Culturelle lawsuit, visit Class Action.org today. About Class Action.org Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the United States. Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of defective products, drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site. Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer rights. ANZ: Overdraft Fee Class Action Hearing Begins ---------------------------------------------- 774 ABC Melbourne reports that the company behind what is claimed to be the biggest class action in Australian legal history says the case could reap tens of millions of dollars for ANZ customers. The Federal Court in Melbourne has begun hearing the case, which aims to establish whether ANZ charges excessive fees to customers who run up overdrafts. Andrew Watson from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers says 34,000 ANZ customers are involved in their case, and a win for them would have knock-on effects for customers of other banks. "If we're successful in our claims against ANZ, it is likely that other banks will need to front up to the reality that their contracts contain the same problems with charging exorbitant fees," Mr. Watson said. "We say that for things like honor and dishonor fees on bank accounts, the actual costs to the bank associated with processing those things are much lower than with the penalties that are being charged." Mr. Watson said the Oct. 3 hearing marked the first major step in the case since proceedings were issued on Sept. 22 last year. "This hearing will answer important questions regarding the definitions within the contracts between ANZ and its customers of what is a fee or a charge," he added. BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowner Protests Over Loan Modification ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bailey Jr., writing for The Commercial Appeal, reports that the first of at least 300 financially distressed Mid-Southerners went to Downtown Memphis on Sept. 29 seeking lower monthly mortgage payments on their Bank of America loans. Through Oct. 1, the bank is setting up a special operation at Memphis Cook Convention Center to try to ease loan terms for its 3,500 borrowers in the region who could lose their homes. The free service is one of 40 such events the nation's largest bank is holding across the country this year to help customers avoid foreclosure. But as if to illustrate Bank of America's own mortgage-related woes, one frustrated homeowner drove from Little Rock seeking justice and recruiting more plaintiffs for a potential class- action suit against the institution. Cosmetologist Karen Laing stood in front of the convention center on Sept. 29 holding a sign that said "BOA Loan Mod Hell" on one side and "BOA Class-Action Sign-Up" on the other. She carried with her an approved loan-modification contract on her $99,220 loan dated July 11, 2009. The document was to lower her interest rate from about 6.9% first to 4.9% and then to about 5.4% starting in 2014. The modification also would increase the payback time from 30 to 40 years and lower her monthly payment about $200, to $720.18. She has been making the lower payments ever since, but something went wrong. The bank says she still owes the original monthly amount. Bank of America has been accepting the lower, modified payments Ms. Laing has sent in for several years, but hasn't been crediting them against her home loan. Instead, the bank puts the money in a miscellaneous account. The situation has destroyed her credit, meaning she can't qualify for a business loan she wants or for a car loan to replace her 2002 Mazda. "I have a modification. I just want Bank of America to honor it," Ms. Laing told Bank of America's Roger Braggs, who came out to talk to her. "Let's look at it and try to find out," Mr. Braggs responded soothingly, taking Ms. Laing inside to talk to a loan specialist. Afterward, Mr. Braggs reported that when Ms. Laing supplies documentation on her income, expenses and debts, "we'll make a decision today or tomorrow, before we leave here." By lunchtime, two other borrowers had told Ms. Laing they would e- mail to her their own tales of woe. She has created an e-mail account for her cause at loanmodtrouble@hotmail.com. Betty Johnson of Nashville is among the happier Bank of America customers. After working with the bank's customer assistance center in Nashville, she feels she's on the verge of reducing her monthly payment from $965 to $703. "That would be a blessing," she said in a phone interview, especially considering she has already twice averted foreclosure on her $78,000 house. Bank of America has been in the vortex of foreclosure controversies for several years. It has been accused of "robo-signing" shoddy mortgage documents. And just last summer, the Obama administration penalized BOA, JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo for poorly administering the federally funded Home Affordable Modification Program. Bank of America has dispatched what amounts to a home-retention SWAT team to its "customer outreach event" in Memphis. Participating customers first register, then attend a "workshop" or orientation for 20 to 30 minutes. Next, they go for 15-20 minutes to a room where nonprofit budget counselors are available to help them. Then they step into a larger room to meet with one of the 20 "home-retention specialists." Customers show the documents they have been asked to bring, including W-2 forms and other papers showing income, bills showing monthly obligations and any debts. The face-to-face meeting, coupled with the documentation, is key because it often clears up "minor paperwork discrepancies," Mr. Braggs said. While 300 customers had made appointments through Saturday, there's room for 600, he said, adding, "We've got plenty of room for walk-ins." The event is a golden opportunity for customers since everybody who is needed to resolve issues is on site, Mr. Braggs said. Even the institutions that own the loans -- like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and GE Financial -- are represented, Mr. Braggs said. Bank of America is just the loan originator and servicer. Of customers who bring in all their required documentation to these outreach events, 47% receive a loan modification "on the spot," Mr. Braggs said. BEST BUY: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the securities class action lawsuit pending in Minnesota, according to the Company's September 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 27, 2011. In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This federal court action alleges, among other things, that the Company and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating to the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to the public. Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the same court. In July 2011, after an unopposed motion by IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc to consolidate their respective lawsuits was granted, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served. In September 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned, Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and former members of the Company's Board of Directors serving during the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and the Company as a nominal defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements and/or omissions regarding the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in possession of material adverse non-public information. Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the same court. In August 2011, the parties filed a stipulation for consolidation of the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto and Daniel Himmel into a new action, and upon consolidation, intend to move the court to stay the new action until after a final resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case. The plaintiffs in the securities actions seek damages, including interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and expenses they incurred in the lawsuits. The Company believes the allegations in the securities actions are without merit, and the Company intends to defend these actions vigorously. Based on the Company's assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the securities actions, their respective procedural litigation history, and the degree to which the Company intends to defend its company in these matters, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated. BEST BUY: Fairness Hearing in Discrimination Suit on Nov. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- A fairness hearing will be held on November 9, 2011, with respect Best Buy Co., Inc.'s settlement resolving a class action lawsuit alleging employment discrimination, according to the Company's September 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 27, 2011. In December 2005, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Jasmen Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"). This federal court action alleges that the Company discriminates against women and minority individuals on the basis of gender, race, color and/or national origin in the Company's stores with respect to its employment policies and practices. The action seeks an end to alleged discriminatory policies and practices, an award of back and front pay, punitive damages and injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for all class members. In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the parties' negotiated settlement including conditional certification of settlement classes and seeking a schedule for final approval. The proposed class action settlement terms include, in exchange for a release and dismissal of the action, certain changes to the Company's personnel policies and procedures; payment to the nine named plaintiffs of $0.3 million in the aggregate; and payment in an amount to be determined by the Court, not to exceed $10 million, of a portion of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2011, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed class action settlement and consent decree; provisionally certified the settlement class; approved and directed distribution of notice of the settlement; and scheduled November 9, 2011, as the date for a Fairness Hearing, pursuant to which the Court will determine whether to grant final approval. The Company says it established an accrual based on the proposed settlement terms. It is not reasonably possible that the Company will incur losses materially in excess of the recorded amount. CADBURY HOLDINGS: Oct. 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- The Notice Company Inc. issued a Summary Notice for End User- Purchasers of Chocolate Candy. LEGAL NOTICE: If You Bought Chocolate Candy, A Class Action Settlement May Affect You. Settlements have been reached with Defendants Cadbury Holdings Ltd., Cadbury plc, and Cadbury Adams Canada, Inc. ("Cadbury"). The litigation is continuing against the remaining Defendants: Hershey Canada, Inc., The Hershey Company, Mars, Inc., Mars Snackfood U.S., LLC and Nestle U.S.A., Inc. "Chocolate Candy" means chocolate bars and other confectionery products made by any Defendant and packaged to be sold at retail. Who is Included? You may be a member of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Settlement Class if you purchased in the United States Chocolate Candy directly from any Defendant listed above from December 9, 2002 through December 20, 2007. You may be a member of the Indirect End User Plaintiffs Settlement Class if you purchased, in the United States or Guam, Chocolate Candy from someone other than a Defendant (such as at a retail store) for end use (personal consumption or gifts) and not for resale, from December 9, 2002 through December 20, 2007. If you made both direct and indirect purchases of Chocolate Candy, you may be a member of both settlement classes. What is this case about? The lawsuit claims that Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of Chocolate Candy resulting in overcharges to those who purchased Chocolate Candy made by a Defendant. The lawsuit seeks nationwide injunctive relief against the Defendants and money for certain class members. The vast majority of sales of Cadbury's chocolate candy products in the United States are made by the Hershey Company, pursuant to a trademark license agreement. The Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. The Court has not decided who is right. What does the Settlement Provide? The settlements provide for the payment by Cadbury of $250,000 in cash to the Indirect End User Plaintiffs, and $1,312,500 in cash to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. It also provides for $250,000 to pay for notice of the settlements to all settlement classes. Cadbury has also agreed to provide certain cooperation in the prosecution of the litigation against the remaining Defendants. Who Represents You? The Court has appointed separate Interim Lead Counsel for the Indirect End User Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, as set out in the detailed notices and the Web sites listed below. You do not have to pay these lawyers to represent you. You may hire your own attorney, if you wish, but if you do so you will be responsible for your own attorney's fees and expenses. What are your Options? If you wish to remain a member of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Settlement Class or the Indirect End User Plaintiffs Settlement Class, you do not need to take any action at this time. If you don't want to be legally bound by either or both settlements, you must exclude yourself in writing by October 21, 2011, or you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, Cadbury about the legal claims in this case. If you stay in either or both settlement classes, you may object to the settlement by November 28, 2011. The detailed notices describe how to exclude yourself or to object. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:30 a.m. on December 12, 2011, at 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108. At this hearing the Court will consider whether the Settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court will also consider requests by Interim Lead Counsel for both classes to use the settlement funds for expenses to be incurred in the future in this case. If there are objections or comments, the Court will consider them at that time. You may appear at the hearing, but you don't have to. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlements. Please do not contact the Court about this case. This Notice is only a Summary. To obtain a detailed notice or a copy of the Settlement Agreement: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs may visit http://www.ChocolateSettlementDirect.com Indirect End User Plaintiffs may visit http://www.ChocolateSettlementIndirect.com or write to: Chocolate Settlement Indirect c/o The Notice Company P.O. Box 455 Hingham, MA 02043 CAL-MAINE FOODS: Litigation Over Egg Prices Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The antitrust litigation involving the United States shell egg industry remains pending, according to Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.'s September 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 27, 2011. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in twenty-four antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In sixteen of these cases, the named plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In fourteen of those putative class actions, the named plaintiffs allege that they are retailers or distributors that purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants. In the other two putative class actions, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties. In the remaining eight cases, the plaintiffs sued for their own alleged damages and are not seeking to certify a class. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. Six of the eight non-class lawsuits were filed in the same court that is presiding over the putative class actions. Another of these non-class cases was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, but it has been transferred to the Eastern District and consolidated for pretrial proceedings with the other cases. The remaining non-class lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The defendants removed this case to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the defendants' transfer request, and the case has now been consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in this action have filed a motion to remand the case back to the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, but that motion has not been decided. The plaintiffs in two of the non-class lawsuits originally filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits without prejudice. The named plaintiffs in the direct purchaser case filed a consolidated complaint on January 30, 2009. On April 30, 2009, the Company filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' consolidated complaint. The direct purchaser plaintiffs did not respond to those motions. Instead, the direct purchaser plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with one defendant. The final hearing on approval of that settlement has been held, but the court has not yet ruled. If it is approved, the settlement would not require the settling party to pay any money. Instead, the settling defendant, while denying all liability, would provide cooperation in the form of documents and witness interviews to the plaintiffs' attorneys. After announcing this potential settlement with one defendant, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 11, 2009. On February 5, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in moving to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages outside the four-year statute of limitations period and claims arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector. The court heard oral argument on these motions but has not yet ruled. On February 26, 2010, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the direct purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 4, 2010, the direct purchaser plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with a second defendant. The final hearing on approval of this settlement has also been held, but the court has not ruled. If this settlement is approved, then the defendant would pay a total of $25 million and would provide other consideration in the form of documents, witness interviews, and declarations. This settling defendant denied all liability in its potential agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs and stated publicly that it settled merely to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation. The named plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser case filed a consolidated complaint on February 27, 2009. On April 30, 2009, the Company filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers' consolidated complaint. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs did not respond to those motions. Instead, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2010. On May 7, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in moving to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages outside the four-year statute of limitations period, claims arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector, claims arising under certain state antitrust and consumer frauds statutes, and common-law claims for unjust enrichment. The court heard oral argument on these motions but has not yet ruled. On June 4, 2010, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint. The cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class were filed between November 16, 2010, and January 25, 2011. The Company has not yet answered or moved to dismiss any of these cases. In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by (a) manipulating egg exports and (b) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000, and running "through the present." The direct purchaser putative class action case alleges two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products. The direct purchaser putative class action case seeks relief under the Sherman Act. The indirect purchaser putative class action case seeks relief under the Sherman Act and the statutes and common-law of various states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Six of the eight non-class cases remain pending. In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In one of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders in the putative class actions related to case management and scheduling. There is no definite schedule in either putative class action case for discovery, class certification proceedings, or filing motions for summary judgment. No trial date has been set in either putative class action case. The non-class cases were filed so recently that the court has not set any schedule for them. The Company says it intends to continue to defend these cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. CHAUS BERNARD: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Camuto Merger Proposal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernard Chaus, Inc. is facing a purported shareholder class action lawsuit over a merger proposal by Camuto Consulting, Inc., according to the Company's September 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended July 2, 2011. On September 15, 2011, the Company received a cash merger proposal from Camuto Consulting, Inc., doing business as Camuto Group, pursuant to which shareholders other than members of the Chaus family, China Ting Group Holdings Limited ("CTG") and Camuto would receive $0.13 per share. The Company says it is currently in negotiations with CTG, one of its suppliers, to convert approximately $12 million of debt owed by the Company to CTG from accounts payable into two interest-bearing term loans with initial terms of two years and five years. The proposal is subject to a number of conditions including, among other things, the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements, the approval of the transaction by Chaus' Board and shareholders, the receipt of a fairness opinion, the approval of the transaction by the Boards of Camuto and CTG, the conversion of certain amounts owed by Chaus to CTG into term loans and the entry by Chaus into a new financing agreement with lender, CIT Group/Commercial Services, Inc. ("CIT"), on terms satisfactory to all parties. The proposal from Camuto must be approved by 2/3 of the Company's shareholders and is currently being considered by the Company's independent directors, assisted by legal and financial advisers. On September 29, 2011, the Company was served with a summons and complaint in connection with a purported shareholder class action lawsuit relating to the Camuto proposal. The lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties by certain current and prior directors of the Company. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. The Company says there can be no assurance that the negotiations between the Company and CTG, and the Company and CIT will be successful. Also, the proposal received from Camuto on September 15, 2011, is only a proposal and has not yet been fully considered by the Board of Directors of the Company nor approved by the shareholders of the Company. There is no assurance that any transactions or agreements contemplated by the Camuto proposal or the negotiations with CTG and CIT will take place or be entered into by the Company. DEAN FOODS: Sued Over False Misrepresentations on Horizon Milk -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a $5 million class action disputes the link Dean Foods has tried to fasten between Horizon organic DHA-fortified milk and purported improvement to "brain health" in adults and children. The consumer complaint says that Dean and its subsidiary, Whitewave Foods, sell a line of four Horizon organic milk products with DHA Omega-3, a "highly processed fermented algae." According to the federal complaint filed in San Diego, Dean and Whitewave make "false, misleading and deceptive" brain-health representations in print, radio and TV ads, and on the labels of milk cartons. "Front and center and prominently featured by itself in a white banner running across the front of each and every milk carton, defendants state 'DHA Omega-3 Supports Brain Health,'" the complaint says. "The brain health representation also prominently appears on the top, the back and the left side panel of every milk carton." "However, the DHA-fortified milk products do not support brain health in children or adults," lead plaintiff Evereth Barrera claims. "Defendants also do not have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support their brain health representation. Clinical cause and effect studies have found no causative link between DHA algal oil supplementation and brain health." Mr. Barrera, a resident of El Centro, Calif., says he purchased Horizon Reduced Fat Milk Plus DHA Omega-3 every week for roughly two months. Whitewave Foods spokeswoman Sara Loveday said the suit was "without merit." "Horizon does not discuss details of pending litigation," she told Courthouse News. "However, we plan to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations about the labeling and marketing of our Horizon's DHA Omega-3 enhanced milk products." The suit says Horizon milk lines the shelves of "virtually every major food, drug and mass retail outlet in the country," and that consumers like Mr. Barrera pay a "premium" price of between $5 to $6 for a one-half gallon of the milk. But, according to the lawsuit, the DHA-fortified Horizon products, which include whole, reduced-fat, fat-free and chocolate milk, do not "perform as advertised." "DHA is a long-chain omega-3 fatty acid typically found in cold water fish," according to the complaint. "The DHA in defendants' milk products is not derived from fish oil. Instead, the DHA oil found in defendants' milk is an immature short-chain omega-3 fatty acid made from an extract of mutated and fermented algae. An 8 oz. serving of the DHA-fortified milk products contain approximately 32 mg of DHA algal oil. Contrary to defendants' representations made on each and every milk carton, DHA algal oil does not support brain health, especially in the relatively small amount found in a serving of defendants' products." The class seeks damages for violations of the unfair competition law, The Consumers Legal Remedies Act and breach of express warranty. A copy of the Complaint in Barrera v. Dean Foods, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02249 (S.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/30/Horizon.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Lindsey M. Gomez, Esq. 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: eryan@bffb.com psyverson@bffb.com lgomez@bffb.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6978 E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com - and - Stewart Weltman, Esq. FUTTERMAN HOWARD ASHLEY & WELTMAN, P.C. 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 427-3600 E-mail: sweltman@futtermanhoward.com DJSP ENTERPRISES: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- John Pacenti, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge dismissed a securities class action suit on Sept. 30 against a publicly traded foreclosure processing business developed by Plantation attorney David Stern. U.S. District Judge William Zloch in Fort Lauderdale said the lawsuit filed by hedge funds and others did not meet the pleading standards set by Congress in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 to sustain the securities fraud claims. DJSP Enterprises was the largest processing service for residential foreclosures in Florida until the state attorney general's office launched an investigation into allegedly fraudulent court documents. Philadelphia Financial Management of San Francisco and Blue Lion Master Fund sought to represent all those who purchased stock from March 16 through May 27, 2010. The lawsuit claimed the publicly traded company was touting its business prospects to investors while failing to disclose its business had experienced significant setbacks due to government intervention and other factors. FULL TILT: Merchant Law Group Launches Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Merchant Law Group LLP has launched class action litigation against Full Tilt Poker. "Our class action issued with the courts [Fri]day asserts that tens of millions of dollars is owed to Canadian online poker players with real money accounts at Full Tilt Poker", said Tony Merchant, Q.C. on behalf of Merchant Law Group LLP. "Our firm has already received complaints from more than 150 people who were online poker players. Many of these individuals held thousands of dollars in their players' account prior to their accounts being frozen in June, 2011." Full Tilt players with real money accounts could previously make deposits and withdrawals against their player's account in a manner similar to other online credit or bank accounts. But since June, Full Tilt has refused to release any money to Full Tilt players. This class action has been launched one day after gambling regulators on the British Channel Island of Alderney revoked Full Tilt's online gambling license used to operate its online card rooms worldwide. The executive director of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission has reportedly said Full Tilt had severe financial problems including unauthorized loans, accounting difficulties, and a failure to report significant material events. Merchant Law Group LLP has launched this class action litigation on behalf of all real money account holders at Full Tilt Poker. News reports internationally estimate the total value of Full Tilt players accounts is between one hundred and fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) and three hundred and ninety million dollars ($390,000,000). Merchant Law Group LLP is a nationally prominent law firm in many areas of the law including class actions, with offices in Montreal, Toronto, St. Catharines, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, and Victoria. For further information visit: http://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/fulltilt.php A copy of the Statement of Claim is available on request. Contact: E. F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C. Cell: 306-539-7777 E-mail: merchant@merchantlaw.com HEART CHECK: Sued Over Sale and Financing of Imaging Scans ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert A. Winkler and Anne M. Winkler, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heart Check America, Tinley Park LLC, An Illinois limited liability company, Heart Check America Inc., A California corporation, Chase Bank U.S.A. N.A., a Delaware corporation, Conrad Acceptance Corporation, a California Corporation, and Defendant Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 2011-CH-34135 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 30, 2011) is a class action arising out of the Defendants' misleading, unlawful and deceptive practices involving the sale and financing of imaging scans to Illinois residents for alleged preventative medical diagnosis. The Plaintiffs are a married couple living in Lemont, Illinois, and are residents of Cook County, Illinois. Mr. Winkler is a retired Special Agent for the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, and Ms. Winkler is a retired Certified Veterinarian Technician. Heart Check America, Tinley Park LLC is an Illinois limited liability company. Heart Check America Inc. is a California corporation registered to do business in Illinois. Heart Check owns and operates a medical imaging business. The true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown. Conrad Acceptance is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. Chase Bank is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and is licensed to do business in Illinois. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq. 200 West Madison Street, Suite 2670 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 960-1800 Facsimile: (312) 984-1047 E-mail: howard@prossnitzlaw.com - and - George O. West, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE O. WEST III 6787 West Tropicana Avenue, Suite 258 Las Vegas, NV 89103 Telephone: (702) 248-1076 Facsimile: (702) 664-0459 E-mail: gowesq@cox.net - and - David Ladwig, Esq. SALLY J LADWIG 4331 McGee Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-3074 IMVU INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Unfair Trade Practices --------------------------------------------------- Peter MacKinnon, Jr., an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly situated v. IMVU, Inc.; and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 111-CV-193767 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., February 7, 2011), which was originally brought by Colby J. Stratton, alleges violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, conversion, misrepresentation and unfair trade practices. The Plaintiff accuses IMVU of selling full-length songs to its customers, and then destroyed the value of those songs by drastically cutting their length to only 20 seconds -- even after assuring its customers that it would not, and after deceptively marketing those products to its customers as full-length songs. Despite the fact that its actions have rendered the purchased products virtually worthless, IMVU refuses to refund Plaintiff and those similarly situated for their purchases, the lawsuit asserts. Mr. MacKinnon is a resident of Midvale, Utah. IMVU is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. IMVU removed the lawsuit on September 30, 2011, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. IMVU argues that the removal is proper because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Mr. MacKinnon and IMVU. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:11-cv-04840 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Gutride, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 835 Douglass Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (415) 271-6469 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com seth@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com The Defendants are represented by: Luanne Sacks, Esq. Carter W. Ott, Esq. Sushila Chanana, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 836-2500 Facsimile: (415) 836-2501 E-mail: luanne.sacks@dlapiper.com carter.ott@dlapiper.com schanana@nixonpeabody.com LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Unjust Enrichment Claims Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Johnson at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of electronics retailers may proceed with state law consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against LCD panel manufacturers including Toshiba, Hitachi and Epson, among others, a federal judge ruled. The plaintiffs contend that the electronics manufacturers engaged in a global price-fixing conspiracy to raise prices and restrict competition in the sales of computer monitors, laptops, televisions and other LCD products. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston agreed that defendants "secretly conspired" to raise prices on LCD devices to "supra-competitive" levels. Whether the defendants' eight to 12 percent price increase amounts to a "gross disparity" remains to be determined. Regarding the plaintiffs' Vermont Consumer Fraud Act claim, Judge Illston found that defendants' concealment of their price-fixing activities may likely "affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product." The Plaintiffs also presented adequate evidence that the money they paid for the overpriced LCD-panel devices went directly to the defendants, which supports an unjust enrichment claim, the court held. The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims also survive under New York law, as plaintiffs established that the LCD panels are an integral component of the electronics in which they are contained. There is a "traceable physical chain" from the defendants, to the plaintiffs to the consumers. The unjust enrichment claims may also proceed under Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Kansas, West Virginia, District of Columbia and several other state laws. A copy of the Order Granting in Part Defendants' Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Various Issues of State Law in In Re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-md-01827 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/30/307-md-01827.pdf LEXINGTON LAW: Settles Credit Repair Class Action for $12.5 Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Slajda, writing for Law360, reports that credit repair firm Lexington Law on Sept. 30 agreed to pay up to $12.5 million in in- kind services to settle proposed class action claims in California that it illegally blocked clients from directly contacting the credit bureaus. A California federal judge must approve the settlement, which would have the firm give class members free identity protection or credit report maintenance services for at least a month. The firm was accused by a former client of violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act. NARA BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Nara Bancorp, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving a lawsuit over its proposed merger transaction with Center Financial Corporation, according to Nara Bancorp's September 30, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Center Financial, its directors and Nara Bancorp alleging, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the proposed merger with Nara Bancorp and that Center Financial breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the disclosures it made regarding the proposed merger. On July 29, 2011, the parties to the litigation agreed to settle all claims asserted in the action, subject to, among other things, the execution of a stipulation of settlement and court approval. As part of the settlement, Nara Bancorp and Center Financial agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures included in an amendment to the registration statement for the Nara Bancorp shares to be issued at the completion of the merger. In addition, defendants have agreed to pay up to $400,000 in plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses, if and to the extent approved by the court. Such payment would be due only if the merger is consummated and be payable by the combined company. If approved by the court, the settlement also would result in the release by the plaintiff and the proposed settlement class of all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger agreement, the merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith (but excluding any properly perfected claims for statutory appraisal in connection with the merger, certain claims arising under the federal securities laws and any claims to enforce the settlement). PENSON WORLDWIDE: October 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that all purchasers of the common stock of Penson Worldwide, Inc. between February 10, 2011, and August 4, 2011, inclusive, have until October 24, 2011, to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit. The shareholder lawsuit, Friedman v. Penson Worldwide, Inc., et al., No. 3:11-cv-02098-O, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Penson Worldwide, through its subsidiaries, provides securities and futures processing infrastructure products and services to the financial services industry. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Penson concealed from investors that by at least the end of 2010: (1) the Company had approximately $96-97 million in receivables, of which approximately $43 million were collateralized by illiquid securities and therefore unlikely to be collected; (2) the Company's assets (Nonaccrual Receivables) were materially overstated and should have been written down at least by the end of 2010; (3) as a result, the Company's reported income and EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and stock-based compensation, and excluding certain nonoperating expenses) were materially overstated; and (4), the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. No class has yet been certified in the action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Penson Worldwide securities between February 10, 2011 and August 4, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until October 24, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Toll Free at (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Accused of Violating California Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ Albert Ching, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated V. Siemens Industry, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG 11591371 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda County, August 19, 2011) alleges that the Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and the California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action, including the allegation that the Defendants' failed to pay prevailing wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. He also accuses the Defendants of failing to provide meal periods to the class members. Mr. Ching is a resident of California and, during the time period relevant to the complaint, was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee within California. Siemens was incorporated in Delaware, and maintains its principal place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. Siemens removed the lawsuit on September 30, 2011, 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 District Court has original jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-04838 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Justin K. Kachadoorian, Esq. ORSHANSKY & YEREMIAN LLP 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1245 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 205-1212 Facsimile: (818) 205-1616 E-mail: anthony@oyllp.com david@oyllp.com justin@oyllp.com The Defendants are represented by: R. Brian Dixon, Esq. Alison S. Hightower, Esq. Laura E. Hayward, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. A Professional Corporation 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 743-6665 E-mail: bdixon@littler.com ahightower@littler.com lhayward@littler.com SINOTECH ENERGY: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the American Depositary Shares of SinoTech Energy Limited pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering commencing November 3, 2010, including purchasers of SinoTech ADSs between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at 310-201-9150 or Toll Free at 888-773-9224, by e-mail at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com SinoTech provides Enhanced Oil Recovery services to major oil and gas fields in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that the Company's Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO was materially misleading and misrepresented the nature, size and scope of the Company's business. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that SinoTech and certain of its executive officers and/or directors, among others, misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's sole import agent, who accounted for more than $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company's largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast majority of SinoTech's revenues, has unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States were inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of GAAP; (6) as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with GAAP; (7) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8), as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 16, 2011, following the disclosures of these allegations in a research report published by Alfredlittle.com, the NASDAQ halted the trading of SinoTech shares and announced that trading would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied NASDAQ's request for additional information." To date, trading of SinoTech has not resumed. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. If you are a member of the class described, you may move the Court, no later than October 18, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class you need not take action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-201-9150 Toll Free: 888-773-9224 E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com STATE OF MICHIGAN: Judge Certifies ABA Therapy Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge on Sept. 30 denied a motion to dismiss a suit challenging Michigan's failure to provide Medicaid coverage for applied behavior analysis therapy (ABA) for autistic children. The plaintiffs in the case of Minter v. Dazzo, case no. 10-cv- 15018, sued the state of Michigan claiming that the state is violating the federal Medicaid law by not making ABA available to autistic children through Medicaid. On Sept. 30, Judge Stephen Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan allowed the case to continue by denying the State's motion to dismiss. The court found that the plaintiffs presented evidence creating a question for trial of whether the state is providing coverage for ABA and whether it is effectively informing Medicaid participants of their right to receive reimbursement for ABA. The court also granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The court held that the question of whether the state violated the Medicaid Act by failing to provide coverage for ABA therapy "is precisely the sort of question that is appropriate for class certification." ABA therapy is the most effective therapy for treating autism in children. The U.S. Surgeon General has found that "30 years of research demonstrated the efficacy of applied behavioral methods in reducing inappropriate behavior and increasing communication, learning and appropriate behavior." Numerous authorities have long found that ABA is a scientifically valid treatment for children with autism, including the United States Surgeon General, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a study commissioned for both the Medicare and Medicaid systems. Moreover, 26 states mandate insurance coverage for ABA therapy. The plaintiff class is represented by the law firms Mantese Honigman Rossman and Williamson, P.C., and John J. Conway, P.C. Contact for the plaintiffs' attorneys is as follows: Gerard Mantese MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 Cell: (248) 515-6419 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com - and - John J. Conway, Esq. JOHN J. CONWAY, P.C. 2662 Woodward Ave, Ste 225 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (313) 961-6525 Cell: (313) 574-2148 E-mail: john@johnjconway.com STATE OF MICHIGAN: Welfare Recipients File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Snell, writing for The Detroit News, reports that several welfare recipients filed a class-action lawsuit on Sept. 30 in federal court to block a stricter, four-year lifetime limit on benefits from taking effect Oct. 1. The lawsuit, filed against Human Services Director Maura Corrigan, said immediate intervention is needed to prevent more than 25,000 parents and children from losing benefits. The welfare recipients from Saginaw, Genesee and Macomb counties asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Detroit. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Corrigan is violating the recipients' rights under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The recipients claim Ms. Corrigan sent them pre-termination notices that cite a "secret policy" that hasn't been made publicly available and which provides a vague, generic explanation for why benefits are being terminated. Ms. Corrigan is exceeding her authority under the state Social Welfare Act by imposing the time limit, according to the lawsuit. Gov. Rick Snyder signed the legislation Sept. 6 and said the state would offer exemptions to those with disabilities that prevent them from working. Gilda Jacobs of the Michigan League for Human Services says she expects about 41,000 people will lose their cash assistance payments Saturday, when the state's new budget year begins. About 30,000 are children. One of the plaintiffs, Kathleen Dygas of St. Clair Shores, receives $403 a month in benefits for her and her 11-year-old daughter. She also has a 9-year-old son who is disabled and receives $674 a month in Supplemental Security Income. Ms. Dygas does not work because of her son's disabilities and was told by the state in late August that she had reached her lifetime limit for cash benefits, according to the lawsuit. STATE OF WASHINGTON: Immigrants' Suit Gets Partial Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a group of immigrants in Washington who said they were denied state-subsidized health care can go forward as a class, after a federal judge partly certified their lawsuit against Douglas Porter, administrator of the Washington State Health Care Authority. A copy of the Order on Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Unthaksinkun, et al. v. Porter, Case No. 11-cv-00588 (W.D. Wash.), is available at http://is.gd/TJJIuH TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Action Over Actos Cancer Risk Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently reviewed partial findings from a 10-year study by the manufacturer that determined Actos (pioglitazone hydrochloride), the prescription medication used to improve blood sugar level for those with type 2 diabetes, carries with it an increased risk of bladder cancer. The findings of the epidemiological study of 193,099 diabetic patients, which were released this past June, have created enough worry that Actos has already been banned in France and Germany because of its risk. The FDA is now advising doctors to warn patients of the risk when prescribing the medication. Further, the FDA noted in its June 15, 2011 Drug Safety Communication concerning risks of bladder cancer from use of pioglitazone: "[C]ompared to never being exposed to pioglitazone, a duration of pioglitazone therapy longer than 12 months was associated with a 40% increase in risk" Actos belongs to a class of drug known as thiazolidinedione (TZD), which now has two popular drugs associated with severe harmful side effects. Last year, concerns that the other drug in the class, Avandia, may increase the risk of heart attack prompted the FDA to restrict use of the drug. Actos has in some cases been prescribed instead of Avandia because of these concerns. Unfortunately, a recent study published in the American Heart Association journal Circulation found that Actos may also increase the risk of heart disease by as much as 4%. Pharmaceutical Class Action Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly & Co., the manufacturers of Actos, are facing a class action lawsuit for a failure to warn consumers of the increased risks. In 2009, Eli Lilly & Co. pled guilty to illegally marketing Zyprexa, an anti-psychotic drug. Ultimately the company paid out $1.42 billion to settle the pharmaceutical class action. Takeda Pharmaceuticals has been the sole marketer of Actos since 2006, when Eli Lilly lost its rights to the drug. Actos has been one of the most-prescribed drugs in the U.S., with sales in 2010 exceeding 2.6 billion dollars. Take Action Always speak to your prescribing physician before discontinuing the use of any medication. If you have symptoms of bladder cancer, such as blood in the urine, pain or burning during urination or a change in bladder habits, speak to a doctor immediately. Actos is also marketed under the names "Actoplus Met", "Actoplus Met XR" and "Duetact". Anyone who took or is taking Actos or another of these drugs should contact a personal injury lawyer to discuss potential involvement in the class action suit, which may bring significant compensation for injuries and wrongful death. TARANTO GROUP: Court Certifies Class Action Over Junk Faxes ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul Koepp, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that the Kansas Supreme Court on Sept. 30 certified a class-action lawsuit against a Leawood company accused of sending junk faxes. Taranto Group Inc., which distributes and resells medical devices, allegedly sent about 120,000 unsolicited advertising faxes through two outside vendors to medical offices from 2005 to 2008. Critchfield Physical Therapy, based in Montgomery City, Mo., filed suit in Johnson County on behalf of the recipients, seeking to recover damages for an unknown number of medical professionals. According to the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, each plaintiff could recover $500 or actual damages, whichever is greater. Taranto objected to the class designation, arguing that some recipients were customers who had consented to receive the faxes. Writing for the court, Justice Eric Rosen limited the class to owners and lessors of fax machines instead of "end users," which could have included anyone using a fax machine. The decision directs the Johnson County District Court to proceed with the lawsuit using that class definition. Rex Sharp and Barbara Frankland, Prairie Village lawyers with Gunderson Sharp & Walke LLP, represent Critchfield and the other class plaintiffs. Leonard Frischer and Mark Schaffer of Frischer & Schaffer Chtd. in Overland Park represent Taranto. TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Chrome 6 Exposure Class Suits Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries from numerous lawsuits filed by plaintiffs that were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from its cement plants, according to the Company's September 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2011. In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al. The lawsuit against three of the Company's subsidiaries purports to be a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant. The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The lawsuit requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as well as punitive and exemplary damages. Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case. As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined. Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury and wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs who were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the Crestmore plant. The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc. from the lawsuits, and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have been dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs. Most of the Company's subsidiaries operating in California remain as defendants. Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries in the same court involving similar allegations, causes of action and requests for relief, but with respect to the Company's Oro Grande, California, cement plant instead of the Crestmore plant. The lawsuits involve approximately 300 individual plaintiffs. Texas Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have been similarly dismissed from these lawsuits. Prior to the filing of the lawsuits, the air quality management district in whose jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from locations around the plant. None of the samples contained chrome 6 levels above 1.0 ng/m3. The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from lawsuit to lawsuit. Following dismissal of certain causes of action by the court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the remaining causes of action typically include, among other things, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability, willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs generally request, among other things, general and punitive damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and medical monitoring costs. At the date of this report, none of the plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any specific amount or range of damages. Some of the lawsuits include additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants. The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these lawsuits but it cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from them. The Company also cannot predict whether any other lawsuits may be filed against the Company alleging damages due to injuries to persons or property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6. ********* 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 * * *