/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111213.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 246 Headlines ANDATEE CHINA: Faces Class Action Over Fengbin Takeover Bid BANK OF AMERICA: Attorneys Seek Slice of Overdraft Settlement BLISS COLLECTION: Recalls 2,300 Children's Henley Pima Pajamas CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Transfer Balance Program CELLCOM ISRAEL: Court Favors Subscribers in Class Action CONAGRA FOODS: Class Action Over Cooking Oil Label Dismissed CREDIT BUREAU: Faces Class Action Over Illegal "Collection Fee" LLOYDS BANKING: Fishman Haygood Files Securities Class Action MF GLOBAL: Commodity Traders File Class Action in Illinois MICROSOFT: Updates Xbox 360 Service Terms to Block Class Actions MIDWEST SALT: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisements PETARMOR: Faces Class Action Over "Spot-On" Flea & Tick Products WACKENHUT SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ********* ANDATEE CHINA: Faces Class Action Over Fengbin Takeover Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders object to Andatee China Marine Fuel Services CEO An Fengbin's going-private takeover bid of $41.3 million, or $4.21 a share; they say the book value is $5.50 a share. A copy of the Complaint in Marin, et al. v. Andatee China Marine Fuel Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 7089 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/08/SCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 BANK OF AMERICA: Attorneys Seek Slice of Overdraft Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a major battle is shaping up over some $123 million in attorney's fees in the massive Bank of America overdraft class action. An Argentinian law firm is asking a federal judge to allow it to intervene in the case, while plaintiffs attorneys want their bid for fees to be decided in Florida state court. BLISS COLLECTION: Recalls 2,300 Children's Henley Pima Pajamas -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bliss Collection LLC, doing business as Bella Bliss of Lexington, Kentucky, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,300 Children's Henley Pima Cotton Pajamas. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for children's sleepwear posing a risk of burn injury to children. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The pajamas are a two-piece, cotton sleepwear set sold in sizes 2 to 12. The pajamas are white, blue, pink or red. "Bella Bliss" is written on the neck tag. Picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12053.html The recalled products were manufactured in Peru and sold at Bella Bliss catalog and Web site, and specialty clothing retailers and online stores from January 2008 to June 2011 for about $48 to $58. Children should stop wearing the recalled sleepwear immediately and consumers should return it to the retailer where the product was purchased for a refund, exchange or store credit. For additional information, contact Bella Bliss toll-free at (866) 846-5295 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bellabliss.com/ CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Transfer Balance Program ------------------------------------------------------------- A group of consumers have filed a class-action lawsuit against credit-card giant Capital One claiming the company lures consumers into transferring large balances with promises of interest-free money, but engineer the offer's details to allow the company to charge interest rates exceeding 13%. The case alleges that Capital One deceived cardholders by claiming that a cash advance obtained through the company's transfer balance program would include a zero percent annual percentage rate, or APR, for one year. At the same time, the company allegedly promised that consumers' credit balances through credit cards and other lines of credit covering regular purchases would not gain interest as long as the balance was paid within 25 days. However, according to the complaint, cardholders who took advantage of the transfer balance program were charged interest rates exceeding 13% for purchases made through credit cards and other lines of credit, even if the balance was paid on time. The lawsuit claims that Capital One strategically and improperly applied payments to the transfer balance rather than to consumers' credit, also known as the purchase balance. This caused many consumers to be charged for the remaining balance at interest rates exceeding 13%, even if they paid off their purchase balance on time. Consumers who used Capital One's program are part of a proposed class identified by the lawsuit filed by consumer protection law firm Hagens Berman. The firm wishes to speak with consumers who were forced to pay high interest rates on credit lines, despite paying the owed amount back on time. You can contact the Hagens Berman legal team via e-mail at CapitalOneTB@hbsslaw.com Consumers can also contact the firm by calling (206) 623-7292. Additional information is available at http://www.hbsslaw.com/capitalonetb The case, filed on June 9, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, asks the court to declare Capital One's acts a breach of contract and award plaintiffs damages for losses incurred because of the program. About Hagens Berman Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm with offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Founded in 1993, the firm represents plaintiffs in class actions and multi- state, large-scale litigation that seek to protect the rights of investors, consumers, workers and whistleblowers. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Court Favors Subscribers in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Dec. 8 disclosed that a purported class action filed against the Company in March 2008, in the District Court of Central Region was decided against the Company. The lawsuit was approved as class action in August 2009, in relation to the allegation that the Company breached the agreements with its subscribers by charging them for a call details records service, previously provided free of charge, without obtaining their consent. The total amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS440 million. The Court accepted the allegation and ordered the Company to repay its customers the sum charged for the service in the amount of approximately NIS22 million plus interest and linkage differences from the date of each payment made by the subscribers, an amount of NIS200,000 to be paid to the plaintiffs and a fee for the plaintiffs' attorney equal to 10% of the sum to be repaid plus VAT. The Company believes the decision to be mistaken and intends to appeal the decision and request to stay proceedings until the appeal is decided. About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider. Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). CONAGRA FOODS: Class Action Over Cooking Oil Label Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Sean Wajert at Dechert LLP reports that a federal court recently dismissed a proposed class action accusing a food company of misleadingly labeling cooking oils as 100% natural when they allegedly were made from genetically modified plants. Robert Briseno, et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc., No. 2:11-cv-05379 (C.D. Calif.). Quick research reveals that 88-94% of the nation's crops of corn, soy and canola are grown from seeds that are the product of bioengineering. There is no credible science that there are serious health issues with these products, and multiple peer reviewed studies on "GM" crops worldwide show farmers in underdeveloped countries have seen an increase in yield of about 29% from using them, along with decreased use of insecticide applications. Plaintiff alleged that he regularly purchased Wesson Canola Oil, bearing labels that state the product is "100% Natural." Plaintiff contended that contrary to these representations, ConAgra used plants grown from genetically modified organism seeds that have been engineered to allow for greater yield, and to be pest-resistant, to make Wesson-branded oils. He asserted that the genetically modified organisms are somehow not "100% natural," and thus the labels and advertising are deceptive. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to represent a class of all persons in the United States who have purchased Wesson Oils from 2007 on. As is typical, he alleged violation of California's false advertising law ("FAL"), California's unfair competition law ("UCL"), and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). Defendant moved to dismiss. The first issue was preemption of the state law causes of action, based on FDA guidance regarding food labels. Federal preemption occurs, generally, when: (1) Congress enacts a statute that explicitly pre-empts state law; (2) state law actually conflicts with federal law; or (3) federal law occupies a legislative field to such an extent that it is reasonable to conclude that Congress left no room for state regulation in that field. Specifically, ConAgra argued that Briseno's claims were preempted because the FDA has repeatedly concluded that bioengineered foods are not meaningfully different from foods developed by traditional plant breeding, and thus that the fact that a food product is derived from bioengineered plants need not be reflected on a product's label. Plaintiff responded that he was not arguing that ConAgra was required to state whether its products were made from genetically modified plants. Rather, he contended that the decision to label its products "100% Natural" was misleading. Courts have split on food preemption issues. Compare Dvora v. General Mills, Inc., 2011 WL 1897349 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2011)(cereal-yes); Turek v. General Mills, Inc., 754 F.Supp.2d 956 (N.D. Ill. 2010)(snack bars-yes); Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc., 2011 WL 1045555 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2011)(yes), with Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 597 F.Supp.2d 1028 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2009)(pasta-no); Wright v. General Mills, Inc., 2009 WL 3247148 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2009)(granola bars-no). Here, the court found no preemption on most of the complaint. The bulk of the complaint, said the court, alleged that use of the phrase "100% Natural" is misleading, and did not contend that additional information must be added to Wesson Oil labels. Regulations requiring that each product list its ingredients by their "common or usual name," together with the regulations requiring that vegetable oils be denominated "oil," were inapplicable since plaintiff's central argument was not that ConAgra cannot use the common or usual names of canola oil, vegetable oil or corn oil. The FDA has expressed that it has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding. So, plaintiff, in essence, sought to create a distinction -- between "natural" oils and those made from bioengineered plants when the FDA has determined that no such distinction exists. The court rejected this argument, refusing to read the FDA guidance as formal enough or clear enough on the issue. Plaintiff did also seek an order requiring defendant to adopt and enforce a policy that requires appropriate disclosure of GM ingredients. Entering an order of this type would impose a requirement that is not identical to federal law, and thus this particular prayer for such relief was preempted. Rule 9(b) requires that in all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. The pleading must identify the circumstances constituting fraud so that a defendant can prepare an adequate answer to the allegations. While statements of the time, place and nature of the alleged fraudulent activities are often sufficient, mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient. Even if fraud is not a necessary element of a claim under the CLRA and UCL, when a plaintiff alleges fraudulent conduct then the claim can be said to be grounded in fraud or to sound in fraud. Plaintiff alleged that he regularly purchased Wesson Canola Oil for his own and his family's consumption. But his complaint contained no allegations as to whether he became aware of the representation through advertising, or labeling, or otherwise. He provided no information about how often he was exposed to the allegedly misleading statement. He did not allege how frequently he purchased the product and over what period of time, whether he relied on statements on canola oil labels, on a Web site, in advertisements, or all of the above, whether the statements remained the same throughout the class period, or, if they did not, on which label(s), advertisement(s) or statement(s) he relied. Thus, this complaint did not afford ConAgra adequate opportunity to respond. Consequently, defendant's motion to dismiss was granted (without prejudice). CREDIT BUREAU: Faces Class Action Over Illegal "Collection Fee" --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action filed in Manhattan claims Credit Bureau Collection Services, of Columbus, Ohio, sent letters demanding an illegal "collection fee" of $195.15 for collecting debts allegedly owed to (nonparty) AT&T Mobility. LLOYDS BANKING: Fishman Haygood Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson, LLP on Dec. 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit was filed on November 23, 2011, against Lloyds Banking Group, plc (formerly Lloyds TSB, plc); Sir Victor Blank; and Eric Daniels in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Lloyds American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period October 1, 2008 through February 27, 2009, inclusive. If you purchased Lloyds ADRs during the Class Period and sustained damages, you may, no later than 60 days from Dec. 8, file a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York requesting that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may serve together as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. If you wish to discuss your rights, please contact: Joseph Peiffer, Esq. Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson, LLP Telephone: (504) 586-5252 E-mail: jpeiffer@fishmanhaygood.com You may retain Fishman Haygood or other counsel of your choice to serve as your counsel in this action. You may also contact the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York at (212) 805-0136 to learn the procedures for filing a motion requesting that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. The complaint charges Lloyds and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lloyds, the largest retail bank in the United Kingdom, has its ordinary shares traded on the London Stock Exchange. Its ordinary shares are also traded in the United States through a sponsored ADR facility with The Bank of New York Mellon serving as the depositary. The ADRs are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol LYG. The CUSIP number is 539439109 and the ratio of ADRs to ordinary shares is 1:4. Sir Victor Blank was, at all times relevant to the lawsuit, Chairman of Lloyds. Eric Daniels was, at all times relevant to the lawsuit, Chief Executive of Lloyds. On September 18, 2008, Lloyds announced that it had reached an agreement to acquire the Halifax Bank of Scotland ("HBoS"). Unbeknownst to the public, however, beginning on October 1, 2008, HBoS was insolvent, and received Emergency Liquidity Assistance ("ELA") from the Bank of England. HBoS further received assistance from the United States Federal Reserve Bank ("U.S. Fed. Assistance") beginning on September 16, 2008. Neither the ELA nor the U.S. Fed. Assistance was publicly disclosed. In a report published by the Bank of England in 2010, the Governor of the Bank of England stated "Without that assistance, [HBoS] would not have survived." On October 13, 2008, Lloyds and HBoS announced revised terms to the acquisition, which terms were reported in a 6-K filed with the SEC. The 6-K failed to disclose that HBoS had received ELA and the U.S. Fed. Assistance. On November 3, 2008, Lloyds filed with the SEC its shareholder circular recommending the acquisition of HBoS. The Circular omitted to state or explain in unambiguous language or at all that: (1) HBoS was receiving ELA from the Bank of England in its capacity as lender of last resort and/or that the GBP60 billion near cash assets which HBoS would contribute to the merger had been dissipated or that those assets were not available or acceptable for the granting of other liquidity assistance or existing liquidity assistance from the Bank of England; (2) At the time of publication of the Circular, HBoS had been using the ELA for more than one month, and it was anticipated that it would continue to rely on such a facility at least in the short term; and (3) HBoS was reliant on such ELA to continue trading, and without it HBoS would be insolvent. In addition, the Circular affirmatively stated that there had been no significant change in the financial or trading position of the HBoS since June 30, 2008, the date of its last published financial statements. Furthermore, the Circular states that, as to HBoS, all material contracts, or contracts which might be material, had been disclosed. On November 19, 2008, the acquisition was approved by the Lloyds shareholders. A similar vote of HBoS shareholders on December 12, 2008 resulted in approval of the takeover. On or about November 24, 2009, the Bank of England revealed the ELA that it had extended to HBoS. Although the existence of the ELA, and the state of Lloyds' knowledge of it, was not disclosed until November 24, 2009, the market did begin to understand the true nature of HBoS's finances shortly after the merger was consummated. On February 13, 2009, Lloyds reported that the newly-acquired HBoS had suffered a worse-than-expected GBP 10 billion loss in 2008, causing the price of Lloyds ADRs to plummet from a closing price on 2/12/09 of $5.33 to $3.80 on 2/13/09 and $2.99 on 2/17/09, a total decline of 44%. Then, on February 27, 2009, Lloyds confirmed that HBoS sustained a pre-tax loss of GBP 10.8 billion in 2008, and that it had been plagued by GBP9.9 billion of bad loans. This announcement caused the price of Lloyds ADRs to decline from a close on 2/26/09 of $4.01 to $3.25 on 2/27/09, $2.79 on 3/2/09, $2.51 on 3/3/09, $2.68 on 3/4/09 and $2.22 on 3/5/09, a total decline of 44%. In total, the news released from February 13 to February 27 resulted in a decline in the price of Lloyd's ADRs from $5.33 to $2.22, a decline of 58%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from Lloyds misrepresentations and omissions on behalf of all purchasers of Lloyds ADRs during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Fishman Haygood, which has extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. The lawsuit, captioned Ross v. Lloyds Banking Group, plc, et al. No. 11-cv-08530, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before Judge Kevin Castel and Magistrate Theodore Katz. Excluded from the Class are the defendants and members of their immediate families, any entity in which a defendant has a controlling interest and the heirs of any such excluded party. A full copy of the lawsuit can be obtained by contacting Fishman Haygood or the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York at (212) 805-0136. Fishman Haygood -- http://www.cfhlaw.com/-- is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. MF GLOBAL: Commodity Traders File Class Action in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- Linda Sandler, writing for Bloomberg News reports that Jon Corzine and other former MF Global Holdings Ltd. executives were sued for damages by a group of commodity traders. Henning-Carey Proprietary Trading LLC, a clearing firm and member of CME Group Inc. (CME), joined with eight traders in a suit in federal court in Chicago saying that $1.2 billion in missing money, or much of it, won't be returned to brokerage customers. They seek to recover losses they and other traders had on their MF Global Inc. brokerage accounts as a result of the parent's Oct. 31 bankruptcy. The suit is one of several filed by brokerage customers and former employees against Mr. Corzine, MF Global executives or the company itself since the bankruptcy. Mr. Corzine told the House Agriculture Committee at a Washington hearing on Dec. 8 that he "would never have intended" transfers from segregated accounts and had teams in place at the firm to ensure they didn't occur. He wouldn't say if he and other executives were willing to share customers' losses. Mr. Corzine and his executives were responsible for looking after customers' segregated accounts, yet the money went missing as the company tried to salvage its business after "engaging in highly leveraged and speculative trading in foreign sovereign bonds," the traders alleged. Frozen Accounts The plaintiffs' accounts were frozen along with about 38,000 others on Oct. 31, after "apparent segregation violations," making it impossible for customers to access their accounts or the assets in them, they said. MF Global trustee James Giddens, who is liquidating the brokerage, has transferred about 38,000 commodity accounts to other firms, and plans to sell 330 securities accounts, he said. Three transfers of collateral made and pending will give commodity customers about $4 billion of their assets, according to court filings. The parent company's Oct. 31 bankruptcy filing, the eighth- largest in U.S. history, listed assets of $41 billion. Mr. Corzine, the former co-chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., quit as MF Global's CEO on Nov. 4. Andrew Levander, a lawyer for Mr. Corzine, didn't immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment on the lawsuit. The traders also are seeking punitive damages and legal costs after a jury trial. The case is Henning-Carey v. Corzine, 11-cv-08717, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). MICROSOFT: Updates Xbox 360 Service Terms to Block Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Caoili, writing for Gamasutra, reports that mimicking Sony's move to block class action lawsuits from PlayStation Network users, Microsoft updated its Xbox 360 terms of services to prevent U.S. owners from taking the company to court. In its major dashboard update rolled out for Xbox 360 on Dec. 6, Microsoft amended the TOS that all owners must agree to before using the console, adding new language purporting that they are giving up their right to file lawsuits against the platform holder. The new TOS section reads: "If you live in the United States, you and Microsoft agree that if you and Microsoft do not resolve any dispute by informal negotiation . . . any effort to resolve the dispute will be conducted exclusively by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration procedures in Section 18.1.7. You understand and acknowledge that by agreeing to binding arbitration, you are giving up the right to litigate (or participate as a party or class member) all disputes in court before a judge or jury. Instead, you understand and agree that all disputes will be resolved before a neutral arbitrator, whose award (Decision) will be binding and final, except for a limited right of appeal under the federal arbitration act." It also includes a clause claiming that users are waiving their rights to join an Xbox 360 class action lawsuit targeting Microsoft. The company has suffered several class action suits over the years, most recently over alleged double-billing on Xbox Live. By limiting consumers' ability to join class action lawsuits, Microsoft could potentially save itself a significant amount of money, as it would pay only a fraction of individual users affected by a particular issue, instead of the millions who could opt into a class action. Sony instituted similar language into its PSN terms three months ago with a new "Binding Individual Arbitration" section, though it also offered an option allowing users to opt-out of the clause by sending a physical letter to the company. It pointed to a recent controversial Supreme Court ruling -- allowing AT&T to block employees from filing class action suits against the carrier -- to explain its decision: "The Supreme Court recently ruled in the AT&T case that language like this is enforceable." "The updated language in the TOS is designed to benefit both the consumer and the company by ensuring that there is adequate time and procedures to resolve disputes." Sony notably updated the terms five months after a federal class action suit was brought against the company for a security breach exposing users' personal information to hackers that attacked the company's online services, including PSN, earlier this year. Several state governments aren't comfortable with these kind of clauses, though, as Kotaku points out. Illinois has ruled that consumers must always have the right to pursue legal action, and Ohio and New Mexico are both currently investigating the issue. MIDWEST SALT: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Advertisements --------------------------------------------------------------- Quality Management and Consulting Services, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Midwest Salt, LLC, Anthony E. Johnson and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2011-CH-41313 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., December 2, 2011) challenges the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that unsolicited faxes damage their recipients because a junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper and ink toner. The Plaintiff adds that an unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable time that would have been spent on something else. Quality Management is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Rolling Meadows, in Cook County, Illinois. Midwest Salt is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Batavia, Illinois. Mr. Johnson is a manager, member, and control person of Midwest Salt. The Doe Defendants will be identified in discovery but are not presently known. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 PETARMOR: Faces Class Action Over "Spot-On" Flea & Tick Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yet another class action was filed last week in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, in the District of New Jersey, against a manufacturer of "Spot-On" Flea and Tick products, neurotoxin pesticides placed directly on the skin of millions of household dogs and cats across the United States. There is a growing sense of moral outrage and alarming statistics from consumers and pet advocates alike after over 75,000 complaints about the products have been reported to the EPA and nothing has been done to change the advertising, marketing or labeling of the products to alert pet owners of the possible serious side-effects. What's chilling is that those numbers only reflect what has been reported, the actual number of incidents may be much, much higher. "Spot-On" products generally do not say in their advertising or marketing or even EPA mandated labeling that the products may cause death or other serious side-effects, including paralysis, seizures and ulcerated skin lesions. Consumers are largely unaware of these possibilities when applying the products to their dogs and cats. Michael Green of Green & Associates, LLC, one of the attorneys that filed the New Jersey class actions, stated, "I've received a number of phone calls from pet owners in the middle of the night, where they are traumatized after their dog or cat has just died in their arms after they placed these pesticides on them. These are innocent pets who were trusting their owner to do the right thing for them. The owners are horrified to think that they gave their pet something that killed them, often in an excruciatingly painful way. Most tragic are those stories where the owner had one pet die only to put it on another pet after being assured there was no connection to the product and have that pet die also. I've gotten a few of those calls too. Unfortunately, the law treats our dogs and cats as just chattel, but if you ask any of these pet owners whose pet died, their dog or cat was a member of their family." Sold By Major Retailers and Veterinarians The "Spot-On" tick and flea business is estimated to be an $8 billion a year industry with the products primarily sold by veterinarians and pet store retailers such as PetCo and PetSmart. Last week, PetArmor, a new "Spot-On" flea and tick product for dogs and cats, is being served with the complaint filed against it. PetArmor was launched on April 20, 2011 in a press conference with the ASPCA. The product has been featured in television ads and is sold in major retailer WalMart. It is described by the manufacturer, FidoPharm, as containing the same active ingredients as Frontline, a well-known veterinarian recommended product. Other "Spot-On" products sued in the class actions in New Jersey, beginning in January 2010, include Frontline, manufactured by Merial Limited, and those manufactured and sold by the other major animal pharmaceutical corporations Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc., Hartz Mountain Corporation, Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Farnum Companies, Wellmark International, Inc. and Summit VetPharm, LLC. "Spot-On" Flea and Tick products are now recommended for virtually all dogs and cats, no matter the locale or specific risk. The Spot-On industry and vets who profit in the billions of dollars have not been called to account as to whether the risk vs. benefits really necessitate that common household pets across this country, and the children and other humans in these households, need to be exposed to these pesticides and neurotoxins 24/7. Studies have shown that the pesticides are detectible on the hands after petting. EPA Complaints Over 75,000 complaints to the EPA have been made since 2008 regarding these products including complaints of death and other serious side-effects even without a centralized poison reporting center, something the Humane Society is now calling for. In April of 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an advisory and reported that there was a noticeable increase in the number of adverse pet reactions involving the "Spot-On" pesticides which act as neurotoxins. Nexus Between ASPCA and "Spot-On" Industry FidoPharm enlisted the aid of the ASPCA in launching an awareness of their "Spot-On" product PetArmor. However, the class action complaint alleges a nexus of relationships between executives of the "Spot-On" product manufacturers and the ASPCA, heretofore known to the public as a non-profit entity established to prevent cruelty to animals. The ASPCA has selected FidoPharm as its official tick and flea sponsor in its adoption centers and clinics. FidoPharm in turn has donated product and $100,000 to the ASPCA. John Preston, the current chairman of FidoPharm's parent, was the founding executive of Merial, the maker of Frontline. Dr. Steven R. Hanson, the Senior Vice President and head of the ASPCA's Poison Control Center, where adverse reports of "Spot-On" products may be made, is a former director of Wellmark. Hartz is a corporate donor to the ASPCA and named Dr. Hanson "Veterinarian of the Year." The complaint alleges that calls into the Poison Control Center regarding Hartz "Spot-On" products are redirected to Hartz, allowing Hartz to directly manage any of these adverse events. In addition, the ASPCA has a for-profit arm, APCC Consulting Services, that provides professional services to animal pharmaceutical corporations, including consultation on product liability. Hartz has been a client of the APCC. Finally, the ASPCA in a press release, in response to the 2009 EPA advisory regarding "Spot-On" products, quoted Dr. Hanson as stating the products should continue to be used. The plaintiffs of the class actions allege that the pesticides in the "Spot-On" products cause death, paralysis, seizures and skin lesions to their pets and that these adverse affects are not stated in the advertising or marketing to pet owners. More information regarding the class action lawsuits filed against FidoPharm and others may be obtained at http://www.spotoncomplaints.com Contact: Michael S. Green, Esq. Green & Associates, LLC Telephone: (732) 390-0480 E-mail: green@msgreenlaw.com WACKENHUT SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, 28 firefighters say Wackenhut, KBR and Halliburton forced them to work around the clock in Afghanistan and Iraq but paid them for only half their time, and responded to requests for fair pay with "shorthand threats to fire" them, such as "'chicken or beef,' which referred to the dining choices one had on the flight home from Iraq." The firefighters sued the contractors for fraud, conspiracy and breach of contract. "This complaint alleges actions and omissions of defendants, in conspiracy with each other, and individually, done to defeat the right of American citizens to receive their lawful wages required by government contracts -- including in-country pay, danger pay, on-call pay, up-lift pay, overtime, and other benefits and compensation," the complaint states. The workers claim that more than 2,000 firefighters were duped into signing contracts that promised overtime and on-call pay "in order to induce them to leave their families in the United States and work under harsh conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan." The firefighters say they were on call day and night, were unable to sleep and were forced to accept pay for only 12 hours. They claim they were forced to perform assignments above their pay grades and keep walkie-talkies next to their ears while they slept. "When plaintiffs complained that they were being shorted pay, that they were being required by KBR to work on-call hours without pay, that KBR was commanding them around, WSI [Wackenhut Services International] informed them that they were lucky to have jobs, that they would be fired and sent back to America, and that many were waiting in line for their jobs," the firefighters say. "Various phrases were used as shorthand threats to fire if the Plaintiffs continued to complain, such as 'chicken or beef,' which referred to the dining choices one had on the flight home from Iraq." The firefighters claim that KBR, Wackenhut and Halliburton were paid by the government for their extra work, but "defendants refuse to pay plaintiffs, but instead pocket the money." They seek class certification and compensatory and punitive damages of $100 million for fraud, breach of contract, conspiracy and failure to pay overtime. A copy of the Complaint in Hill, et al. v. Wackenhut Services International, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02158 (D.D.C.) (Boasberg, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/08/Wackenhut.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott J. Bloch, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT J. BLOCH, PA 1050 17th St., N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 496-1290 E-mail: sbloch@bcounsel.com - and - Michael J. Trevelline, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TREVELLINE 1823 Jefferson Place, NW Washington, DC 20036-2504 Telephone: (202) 737-1139 E-mail: mjt@mjtlegal.com ********* 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 * * *