/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111222.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 22, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 253 Headlines ALBERTA HEALTH: Fee Hike Suit Can Proceed as Class Action ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL: May Face Class Action Over Patient Neglect AMLI MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Unpaid Security Deposit Interest BANK OF AMERICA: Jump Legal Group Files Foreclosure Class Action BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in "Lina" Class Suit Remains Pending BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on IPO Securities Suit Appeal BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit BIG LOTS: Limited Discovery in "Gromek" Suit Still Ongoing BIG LOTS: Parties in "Martinez" Class Suit Engaged in Discovery BIG LOTS: Remaining Claims in "Avitia" Suit Dismissed in October BIG LOTS: "Seals" Suit Remains Pending in California BIG LOTS: Still Defends "Sample" Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plavix Suits Will Not Proceed as Class Suits BUDGETEXT CORP: Faces Suit for Not Paying Termination Pay CARRIER IQ: Sued For Unauthorized Tracking of Users' Info CHINA MEDICAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Class Action in New York CHRYSLER LLC: Brake Defect Suit Moved to Bankruptcy Court DE BEERS: Appeals Court Upholds $295M Settlement in Antitrust Suit DONALDSON CO: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in Filter MDL E&B GIFTWARE: Agrees to $550T Fine Over Defective Fitness Balls FOOT LOCKER: Still in Mediation with "Pereira" Suit Parties GRUNENTHAL: Thalidomide Class Action to Be Heard in Australia HAIN CELESTIAL: Sued for Using Synthetic Ingredients in Products INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York LEAR CORP: Says Ch. 11 Case Should Block Class Action Suits LOUIS VUITTON: Judge Reverses Customer Info Class Action Ruling MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Defend "INFUSE" Suit in Minnesota MEDTRONIC INC: Fully Paid Plaintiffs of Fidelis-Related Claims METRO TRANSIT: Accused of Tolerating Racial Discrimination NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Limits Class in Labor Law-Violations Suit OHIO VALLEY: Doctors' Class Suit vs. Health Plan Still Tied Up PHARMAVITE LLC: Sued Over False Claims on Vitamin E Product PROVIDA LIFE: Sued Over Body Makeover Money-Back Guarantee ROSS STORES: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif. STUBHUB INC: Sells "Already Sold" Tickets, Calif. Suit Claims TINSLEY ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime WARRIOR GOLF: Sued Over False Advertising on "Free" Golf Club ********* ALBERTA HEALTH: Fee Hike Suit Can Proceed as Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Edmonton Journal reports that a class-action lawsuit, which disputes dramatic fee hikes at nursing homes in 2003, can proceed once again after the Court of Queen's Bench threw out a November challenge by Alberta Health Services. Justice Sheila Greckol, in a decision filed Dec. 19, directed the health authority to pay the costs of the non-profit Elder Advocate of Alberta Society and the other plaintiffs. In May 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled their class-action suit could proceed after it heard arguments that substantial fee hikes at nursing homes in August 2003 were used to subsidize basic health-care costs that should have been covered by the government. At the time, the province increased fees for a semi-private bed to C$42 a day from C$12, while the cost of a private bed rose to C$48 from C$15. In November, Alberta Health Services fought those claims of negligence. Justice Greckol's decision on Dec. 19 throws out those claims. ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL: May Face Class Action Over Patient Neglect -------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Donnelly, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a hospital has been accused of leaving dying patients to starve in a catalogue of cases of alleged neglect. Lawyers are planning a "class action" on behalf of 23 families who contacted them with "shocking" claims of indignities and the most basic failings in care. They believe the families who have contacted them so far about care at Alexandra Hospital, in Redditch, West Midlands, may represent "the tip of the iceberg". The number of potential claims make it the biggest group action of its type since hundreds died in appalling conditions at Stafford Hospital, leading to a public inquiry which is expected to criticize the wider failings of the NHS and of regulators' failures to protect patients, when it reports next year. The cases against Alexandra Hospital include: * A 35-year-old father-of-four who his family say wasted away because staff did not know how to fit a feeding tube * A retired NHS worker who died after allegedly being left without food or crucial heart medication * A man who fell into a coma after contracting E.coli, apparently from a filthy catheter * The claims include allegations that vulnerable patients were left to starve when trays were left out of reach, while others left in soaking bedsheets Official statistics show death rates at Worcestershire Acute Hospitals trust, which runs the hospital, were 10% higher than the national average in 2010/11 -- meaning there were 239 deaths more than would be expected. The legal action comes amid increasing concern about the standards of care for hospital patients and failures to protect the vulnerable. Earlier this year, a report by the Health Service Ombudsman condemned the service for its inhumane treatment of the elderly. The investigation found hospitals were failing to meet their most basic needs, with many left hungry, unwashed or given the wrong drugs because of the "casual indifference of staff". Legal firm Leigh Day & Co, which previously won the largest-ever group claim against a single NHS hospital for 119 victims of the Stafford hospital scandal, said they believed that the families who had contacted them so far about the Alexandra Hospital may represent "the tip of the iceberg". The legal action facing the trust comes after the Care Quality Commission (CQC) published the findings of spot check visits to 100 hospitals to inspect care of the elderly in October. Half were found to be failing basic standards. "Major concerns" were found at two -- including Alexandra Hospital, where failings were so fundamental that it was warned in May that it was breaking the law. So many patients on its wards were left at risk of dehydration that doctors were forced to prescribe water for them. Since then, almost two dozen families have contacted lawyers about cases. While some have been fighting almost ten years for an explanation from the hospital, other cases in the group occurred as recently as July. Emma Jones, a human rights lawyer for Leigh Day & Co, said many had given up hope of getting answers until they saw the CQC report into Alexandra Hospital. Lawyers will say that the treatment of many patients was so degrading, and so compromised their privacy, that it constituted an abuse of the Human Rights Act. The firm has been instructed by 17 families, and is considering six further cases. Miss Jones said: "The common themes we have encountered include patients being left dehydrated and starved -- feeding tubes not given to patients who could not swallow normally, food being plonked out of reach of patients, and others left to eat with their fingers because they weren't given cutlery. "Buzzers went unanswered, several patients were left sitting in soaking bedclothes for hours, or in their own faeces." Chris Grande, a father of four, was just 35 when he died, four days after being admitted to the hospital last Christmas with breathing problems. His widow Sonya says her husband, who suffered from spinal muscular atrophy, was left to starve because hospital staff did not know how to fit a feeding tube for him after he was admitted on Boxing Day. His body was pumped with fluid, to address dehydration, but nurses failed to heed her warning that her husband's condition meant he would quickly weaken without food, she said. Mrs. Grande, 42, said her husband was stripped of his basic dignity. Nurses left him to lie in his own faeces for more than three hours, ignoring her pleas for help to turn him, to clean him up, she said. When an elderly man fell from the next bed staff were slow to help him up, and no one checked for any head injury, she said. Two hours later, a nurse returned and found him dead, only to laugh, said Mrs. Grande, and comment that the dead body was not what she had come looking for. The former personal assistant said she felt "haunted" by her husband's screams, as his condition worsened. She said: "He said it felt like his body was burning, he was screaming out, it was unbearable. He could barely speak for the pain." The widow believes that errors meant fluid was being pumped into his skin tissue, instead of into his vein, causing the agony. A do not resuscitate decision was taken by the medical team -- against the couple's wishes. Mrs. Grande said: "They starved my husband to death. Chris spent his last few days in agony, and terrified of the people who were supposed to be helping him." Frank Bushell, 63, was admitted to the hospital in May, for a hip operation. Within a week the retired publican was lying in a coma, and suffering multiple organ failure, triggered by an infection of E.coli -- caught from a dirty catheter. After 10 days unconscious, and several weeks in hospital, he was finally discharged in a wheelchair. Nurses stood chatting as his wife Patricia, who is just 4 foot 8 inches tall, tried to help the 6 foot man into a taxi, she claims. Mrs. Bushell said: "After all we had been through, the nurses did not lift a finger. We were desperate to get him out of that hospital, it was not a safe place. "It seems incredible that a man can go into hospital for a hip operation, and be left battling for his life." Reginald Iliffe was admitted to the hospital aged 85 with problems swallowing, three days after being diagnosed with cancer, when doctors said they expected him to live for 18 months. The pensioner, who had worked for the NHS all his life, was left unwashed, and often lying in soaked sheets, his daughters say. For the last seven days of his life Mr. Ileffe was given neither food nor the crucial heart medication he had been taking for 20 years, they say -- a criticism which was confirmed by an independent investigation by the Health Service Ombudsman. Nine days after being admitted to hospital, the former dental technician died of a heart attack. For more than six years, his bereaved daughters say they have been fighting for an explanation from the hospital. They say that although hospital doctors had prescribed the heart medication for Mr. Iliffe, as well as nutrition supplements, nurses gave him neither, on the grounds he was nil by mouth, when they should have arranged for an intravenous drip. Joan Checkley, now 61, said she and her sister had been fearful about the care he was getting and checked his medical chart every day -- but did not know until after his death that codes indicated medication was not being administered. Mrs. Checkley, who works as an NHS receptionist, said they were horrified by the "degrading" way her father was treated. "In nine days they never washed him, and they wouldn't even give him a bottle -- they would just tell him to go in the sheets," she said. "Dad had every faith in the health service. He worked for the NHS all his life and he loved it, working in dental hospitals in Liverpool and Birmingham. "He would have never have believed they would let them down the way they did." In November, the CQC published a further report, which said return visits found the hospital to be meeting the basic standards on dignity and nutrition it had failed in May. Helen Blanchard, the trust's Director of Nursing and Midwifery, said: "We actively encourage patient and family feedback and where there is any indication that standards of care fall short of the high standards we expect all staff to deliver we will always address it." AMLI MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Unpaid Security Deposit Interest ----------------------------------------------------------- Janee Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMLI Management Company, Case No. 2011-CH-43084 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., December 15, 2011) accused the Defendant of violating the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance. As a tenant of an AMLI Management dwelling unit in Chicago, Illinois, Ms. Johnson says she gave a $704 security deposit for the Unit in June 2009. In violation of the RLTO, she argues, the Defendant paid her no interest on her security deposit either by cash or by credit against rent after she moved out in 2011. Ms. Johnson used to rent a dwelling unit from the Defendant in Chicago. AMLI Management is the lessor of the Plaintiff's unit and over 200 other rental units in Chicago known as the AMLI 900. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775-1015 Facsimile: (312) 256-2055 E-mail: mark@depositlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Jump Legal Group Files Foreclosure Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ohio Attorneys John Sherrod and W. Mark Jump, of Jump Legal Group, have filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of America on behalf of Ohio homeowners who have been wrongfully foreclosed on by Bank of America despite never missing a single payment. The suit alleges Bank of American improperly diverted homeowners' trial loan modification payments. The initiation of the class action lawsuit came after Bank of American foreclosed on a Canal Winchester, Ohio, couple who were shocked when a process server appeared at their door with foreclosure papers. Attorney John Sherrod relays, "the Woodruffs are responsible homeowners, who like many people, were hurt by the bad economy. They contacted Bank of America and entered into a loan modification agreement. They made every payment on time and then Bank of America foreclosed on them anyway. Joe and Jennifer have two young children and they worry what this stress is doing to them." There are potentially hundreds of other homeowners in Ohio who are living through this same nightmare. "At this point we have handled countless loan modifications where the loan application and agreements have been mishandled by the banks. This is probably one of the more egregious scenarios emerging in the marketplace," W. Mark Jump said. What should you do if you have had an experience similar to the Woodruff's? Attorneys John Sherrod and Mark Jump urge homeowners to contact them at 614-454-4307 or to visit Jump Legal's Web site and fill out a brief questionnaire about your experience. Jump Legal Group -- http://www.legaldebtsolutions.com-- is a Columbus, Ohio law firm dedicated to helping people keep their homes and get a fresh start using the protection of Foreclosure Defense, Loan Modifications, Debt Settlement, and Bankruptcy. For more than a decade, Jump Legal Group has helped thousands of people in Ohio. BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in "Lina" Class Suit Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s appeal from an order remanding a class action lawsuit to a state court remains pending, according to its December 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint captioned Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations against defendants with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of California from the period of August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On August 30, 2011, the Company filed an answer in state court, and on August 31, 2011, it removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). On October 28, 2011, the district court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the action back to state court, over the Company's opposition. The Company believes that the district court remanded the action in error. On November 7, 2011, Barnes & Noble petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an appeal of the district court's remand order. The case is currently in state court, pending the Ninth Circuit's decision regarding the Company's petition for permission to review the remand order. BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on IPO Securities Suit Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs' motion to dismiss an appeal in the consolidated lawsuit arising from the Company's initial public offering, according to the Company's December 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. The class action lawsuit known as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation filed in April 2002 (the Action), named over one thousand individuals and 300 corporations, including Fatbrain.com, LLC (Fatbrain), a former subsidiary of Barnes & Noble.com, and its former officers and directors. The amended complaints in the Action all allege that the initial public offering registration statements filed by the defendant issuers with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the one filed by Fatbrain, were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the defendant underwriters were receiving excess compensation in the form of profit sharing with certain of its customers, and that some of those customers agreed to buy additional shares of the defendant issuers' common stock in the aftermarket at increasing prices. The amended complaints also allege that the foregoing constitutes violations of: (i) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "1933 Act") by the defendant issuers, the directors and officers signing the related registration statements, and the related underwriters; (ii) Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") by the same parties; and (iii) the control person provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts by certain directors and officers of the defendant issuers. A motion to dismiss by the defendant issuers, including Fatbrain, was denied. After extensive negotiations among representatives of plaintiffs and defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU), outlining a proposed settlement resolving the claims in the Action between plaintiffs and the defendant issuers. Subsequently, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the defendants and plaintiffs in the Action, the terms of which are consistent with the MOU. The Settlement Agreement was submitted to the court for approval, and on February 15, 2005, the judge granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On December 5, 2006, the Federal Appeals Court for the Second Circuit (the Second Circuit) issued a decision reversing the District Court's class certification decision in six focus cases. In light of that decision, the District Court stayed all proceedings, including consideration of the settlement. In January 2007, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc before the Second Circuit, which was denied in April 2007. On May 30, 2007, plaintiffs moved, before the District Court, to certify a new class. On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered an order terminating the Settlement Agreement. On October 2, 2008, plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the class certification motion. On October 10, 2008, the District Court signed an order granting the request. A Settlement Agreement in principle, subject to court approval, was negotiated among counsel for all of the issuers, plaintiffs, insurers and underwriters, and executed by the Company. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the court on June 10, 2009, and final court approval of the settlement was granted on October 5, 2009. Pursuant to the settlement, no settlement payment will be made by the Company. Since that time, various notices of appeal have been filed by certain objectors on an interlocutory basis. On August 25, 2011, the District Court ruled that the last remaining appellant of the decision granting final approval of the settlement has no standing to object to the settlement. This last remaining appellant has appealed the district court's decision, and plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeal. BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed against Big Lots, Inc. by a California resident (the "Caron matters"). The first was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. This action is similar in nature to the "Seals" matter, which enabled the Company to successfully coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The second and third matters, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believed these two matters overlapped and the Company successfully consolidated the two cases before the United States District Court, Central District of California. The Company believes the remaining allegations also overlap some portion of the claims released through the class action settlement in the Espinosa matter, which was settled in 2008. On August 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' class certification motion. On April 21, 2010, the Court granted, with prejudice, the Company's motion to deny class certification. Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiff remain before the Court. No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Caron matters or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in these lawsuits; however, the ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. BIG LOTS: Limited Discovery in "Gromek" Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- In June 2010, a civil collective action complaint was filed against Big Lots, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as exempt employees ("Gromek matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who were similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company answered the plaintiffs' complaint on August 12, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Court 1) conditionally certify a class of then-current and former assistant store managers employed during the prior three years, excluding those employed in California or New York, and 2) authorize the plaintiffs to send a notice of this lawsuit to those putative class members to allow them to join this lawsuit. On December 17, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On February 11, 2011, the Company filed a motion to sever the plaintiffs' claims and transfer those claims to various venues around the country. On February 22, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion without prejudice and granted limited discovery. The Company is currently engaged in the limited discovery granted by the Court. No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Gromek matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the Company currently believes that the Gromek matter will be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. BIG LOTS: Parties in "Martinez" Class Suit Engaged in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the class action lawsuit, known as the "Martinez" matter, are engaged in discovery, according to Big Lots, Inc.'s December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. In February 2011, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws ("Martinez matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of the named plaintiff and a California statewide class consisting of all other similarly situated current and former warehouse employees, damages for alleged missed meal periods, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid overtime, unpaid vested vacation, unpaid wages at termination, untimely payment of wages, noncompliant wage statements, failure to keep accurate payroll records, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company answered the plaintiff's complaint on March 25, 2011. The parties are engaged in discovery. The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Martinez matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. BIG LOTS: Remaining Claims in "Avitia" Suit Dismissed in October ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, dismissed the claims of the remaining plaintiffs in the "Avitia" class action lawsuit on October 4, 2011, according to Big Lots, Inc.'s December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Avitia matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages at separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original complaint, which sought to recover damages on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who were similarly situated, filed an amended complaint that removed the class and representative allegations and asserted only individual actions. On July 14, 2011, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with one of the plaintiffs and the court dismissed that plaintiff's claims on July 29, 2011. In September 2011, the Company entered into confidential settlement agreements with the four remaining plaintiffs and the court dismissed those plaintiffs' claims on October 4, 2011. The Company says the Avitia matter was resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. BIG LOTS: "Seals" Suit Remains Pending in California ---------------------------------------------------- In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against Big Lots, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees ("Seals matter"). The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 29, 2009, the Court denied, with prejudice, plaintiffs' class certification motion. On January 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. On April 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial Court's decision denying class certification. A trial date for the Seals matter has been set for April 23, 2012. The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from this lawsuit or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. BIG LOTS: Still Defends "Sample" Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc. continues to defend a wage and hour class action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims ("Sample matter"). The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages resulting from allegedly unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid business expenses, non-payment of wages at termination, untimely payment of wages, noncompliant wage statements, failure to providing seating, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Sample matter is similar in nature to the actions comprising the Caron matters. The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Sample matter or the estimated range of possible loss, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plavix Suits Will Not Proceed as Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog reports that Plavix lawsuits will not become a class action lawsuit for discovery purposes because there are not enough cases to justify an MDL, according to an MDL panel of judges. The court did not suggest that the Plavix cases were not viable lawsuits. The court also believed that the Plavix personal injury or wrongful death cases, do involve the same important common factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, regulatory approval, labeling, and marketing of Plavix. But the panel found that centralizing the cases in a pseudo class action (which is what an MDL is) would delay the progress of the long-pending actions in the District of New Jersey where most of the cases have been filed. Moreover, the court indicated that the "limited number of actions and relatively few involved counsel also weigh against centralization." In other words, the benefits of getting all of the lawyers together and performing common discovery would not be furthered significantly with an MDL. BUDGETEXT CORP: Faces Suit for Not Paying Termination Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Donald Keys, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Budgetext Corporation, an Arkansas corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:11-cv-06384 (N.D. Calif., December 16, 2011) seeks payment, including wages and benefits, in connection with the termination of the Plaintiff's and other class members' employment following the closure of Budgetext's plant in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Plaintiff asserts that offsite employees like him were entitled to 60 days notice of termination, and to wages and benefits for that period, which Budgetext did not pay. Mr. Keys is a resident of Upland, California. He worked as an account representative at Budgetext from July 2007 until October 24, 2011. Budgetext is an Arkansas corporation and has done business in the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff does not know the names and identities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Harry Shulman, Esq. SHULMAN LAW 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 901-0505 Facsimile: (415) 901-0504 E-mail: harry@shulmanlawfirm.com - and - S. Chandler Visher, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 901-0500 Facsimile: (415) 901-0504 E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com CARRIER IQ: Sued For Unauthorized Tracking of Users' Info --------------------------------------------------------- Laureen Briggs, as an Individual and on behalf of the Class v. Carrier IQ, Inc.; HTC Corporation; HTC America, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 4:11-cv-06338 (N.D. Calif., December 15, 2011) asserts that at issue is whether Carrier IQ violated certain laws applicable to members of the Class by placing its patented Carrier IQ software on the wireless phone and handsets of the members of the Class, including the Plaintiff, and using that software to track the information that the users of the phone and handset entered through their keystrokes -- all without the consent or knowledge of the Plaintiff and members of the Class. The Plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco, California, and owns an iPhone4, which is operating on AT&T's cellular network. Carrier IQ, a Delaware corporation, is a software developer and manufacturer. HTC is a Taiwan corporation and cellular device manufacturer located in Taoyuan, Taiwan. HTC America, a subsidiary of HTC, is a Washington corporation and sells its products throughout the United States. Samsung is a Korean company and sells its products throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dale Bernardo Ratner, Esq. DALE BERNARDO RATNER 1550 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 817-1200 E-mail: DaleRatner@gmai1.com - and - David S. Ratner, Esq. MORELLI RATNER PC 950 Third Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 751-9800 Facsimile: (212) 751-0046 E-mail: Ratner@Morellilaw.com CHINA MEDICAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal securities class action (11 Civ 9297) in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased American Depository Shares of China Medical Technologies, Inc., between November 26, 2007 and December 12, 2011, inclusive. This class action is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased China Medical securities during the Class Period, you have until February 17, 2011 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's acquisition of Beijing Bio-Ekon Biotechnology Co. Ltd. was from a third party seller connected to China Medical's Chairman, Wu Xiaodong; (2) the Company overpaid approximately $20 million to acquire BBE; (3) the Company's acquisition of BBE involved the use of fraudulent shell companies; (4) BBE was suffering operating losses prior to the acquisition; (5) the Company overstated accounts receivables in order to inflate sales and net income; (6) the Company's reported profit margins were inflated; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 6, 2011, Glaucus Research Group published an analyst report revealing, in part, that China Medical's Chief Executive Officer was embezzling money through sham acquisitions, the Company's reported profits and net income were inflated as they were inconsistent with comparable competitors, and the majority of the Company's account receivables were in excess of 120 days, indicating that its reported revenues were inflated. On this news, China Medical's shares declined $0.81 per share, or nearly 24%, to close on December 6, 2011 at $2.57 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. On December 13, 2011, China Medical disclosed that the Company intends to implement a debt restructuring plan to improve its balance sheet. On this news, China Medical's shares declined $0.43 per share, or nearly 13%, to close on December 13, 2011 at $2.87 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. The firm has offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C. CHRYSLER LLC: Brake Defect Suit Moved to Bankruptcy Court --------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bransford at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that U.S. District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh granted a magistrate's recommendation on Dec. 16 to move a class action claim against Chrysler Group LLC alleging brake defects to New York bankruptcy court, saying that court could best determine whether Chrysler was responsible for warranties covering the vehicles. Judge Cavanaugh overruled the objections of the vehicle owners, agreeing with U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy Waldor's Oct. 3 recommendation that a bankruptcy judge should determine whether Chrysler took on the warranties of former company Chrysler LLC in a sale, according to Law360. About Chrysler Chrysler Group LLC, formed in 2009 from a global strategic alliance with Fiat Group, produces Chrysler, Jeep(R), Dodge, Ram Truck, Mopar(R) and Global Electric Motorcars (GEM) brand vehicles and products. Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Chrysler Group LLC's product lineup features some of the world's most recognizable vehicles, including the Chrysler 300, Jeep Wrangler and Ram Truck. Fiat will contribute world-class technology, platforms and powertrains for small- and medium-sized cars, allowing Chrysler Group to offer an expanded product line including environmentally friendly vehicles. Chrysler LLC and 24 affiliates on April 30, 2009, sought Chapter 11 protection from creditors (Bankr. S.D.N.Y (Mega-case), Lead Case No. 09-50002). Chrysler hired Jones Day, as lead counsel; Togut Segal & Segal LLP, as conflicts counsel; Capstone Advisory Group LLC, and Greenhill & Co. LLC, for financial advisory services; and Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC, as its claims agent. Chrysler has changed its corporate name to Old CarCo following its sale to a Fiat-owned company. As of December 31, 2008, Chrysler had $39,336,000,000 in assets and $55,233,000,000 in debts. Chrysler had $1.9 billion in cash at that time. In connection with the bankruptcy filing, Chrysler reached an agreement with Fiat SpA, the U.S. and Canadian governments and other key constituents regarding a transaction under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code that would effect an alliance between Chrysler and Italian automobile manufacturer Fiat. Under the terms approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the company formerly known as Chrysler LLC on June 10, 2009, formally sold substantially all of its assets, without certain debts and liabilities, to a new company that will operate as Chrysler Group LLC. Fiat has a 20% equity interest in Chrysler Group. The U.S. and Canadian governments provided Chrysler with $4.5 billion to finance its bankruptcy case. Those loans are to be repaid with the proceeds of the bankruptcy estate's liquidation. * * * As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on June 6, 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'B+' corporate credit rating to Chrysler Group LLC. The rating outlook is stable. "At the same time, we assigned our issue-level rating to Chrysler's $4.3 billion senior bank facilities ('BB') and $3.2 billion second-lien notes ('B'). The recovery ratings are '1' and '5'. The company recently completed this financing," S&P stated. DE BEERS: Appeals Court Upholds $295M Settlement in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph R. Saveri of the national plaintiff's law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on December 20 announced that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion today upholding the settlement in the class action litigation against the South African company De Beers, the world's largest diamond supplier, for allegedly conspiring to monopolize the sale of rough diamonds. The appellate court affirmed an order by U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey that approved a settlement under which De Beers agreed to pay $295 million to U.S. jewelry makers, retailers, and consumers who purchased diamonds and diamond jewelry beginning in 1994. The settlement also prevents De Beers from continuing its illegal business practices and requires De Beers to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the settlement. "T[he] decision reaffirms that class actions are an integral part of our civil justice system and serve as an effective tool to remedy injuries when corporations fix prices, restrict supply, stifle innovation, and harm smaller companies, entrepreneurs, governments, and consumers," stated Saveri, co-counsel for the class of diamond purchasers. "The Court held that small procedural issues will not bar the prosecution or settlement of claims on behalf of consumers found throughout the country who all bought the same product that was sold at illegally set high prices. Global companies will continue to be held accountable in the United States for their illegal conduct, and consumers can continue to rely on our antitrust laws and Courts to fight back and obtain justice." The significance of the decision includes: * The opinion clarifies the law with respect to class certification standards generally and in antitrust cases in particular. It similarly clarifies the law with respect to class certification requirements in the settlement context. * In the antitrust area, the opinion reiterates the propriety of certification of proceeding on a class basis. Where the claim is that there is a market wide restraint, like price-fixing or cartel behavior, and persons buy the price-fixed product, either directly or indirectly through middlemen, the predominance and other requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are readily satisfied. There is no requirement that plaintiffs prove that every person is injured. Issues regarding proof of damages are no impediment to class certification in this context. * Variances in state law are similarly no impediment because the focus of answering the questions that state laws pose are common because they focus on the conduct of defendants and the fact that injured class members suffered injury when they purchased the product. There is no requirement that the injury be uniform. The opinion shows that this conclusion is entirely consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wal-mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). With respect to settlement classes, the result is even more clear because the manageability requirement under Rule 23 is inapplicable in the settlement context. * Circuit Judge Scirica provided an important concurring opinion discussing the case in the wider context of evolving law on settlement classes. Justice Scirica specifically noted that in antitrust cases "common issues tend to predominate because a major focus is the allegedly anticompetitive conduct of the defendant and its downstream effects on plaintiffs." You can read a copy of the appellate court's opinion. To learn more about the De Beers Diamonds antitrust litigation please visit https://diamondsclassaction.com/ About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes representing companies, governments, and consumers harmed by anticompetitive conduct. Each year since 2003,The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation. DONALDSON CO: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in Filter MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- Donaldson Company, Inc. is still awaiting approval of a preliminary agreement settling class action lawsuits filed in 2008 alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including the Company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. Customers for aftermarket automotive filters, according to the Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011. The settlement will fully resolve all claims brought against the Company in the lawsuits and the Company does not admit any liability or wrongdoing. The settlement, which has been accrued for by the Company, is still subject to Court approval and will not have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity. As previously reported, on March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a lawsuit alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including the Company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. Customers for aftermarket automotive filters. The U.S. cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The Company denies any liability and has vigorously defended the claims raised in these lawsuits. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. E&B GIFTWARE: Agrees to $550T Fine Over Defective Fitness Balls --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that it has reached a settlement with E&B Giftware LLC (E&B), of Yonkers, N.Y., resolving CPSC staff allegations that E&B failed to report a defect with its fitness balls. In settling this matter, E&B has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $550,000. The settlement agreement [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12060.pdf]has been provisionally accepted by the Commission. CPSC staff alleged that E&B's subsidiary, EB Brands, LLC (EB Brands), knew of 25 incidents related to the defective balls as early as 2007, but failed to immediately inform the Commission as required by federal law. Some of these incidents led to consumers being injured. By October 2008, when EB Brands reported to the Commission, EB Brands knew of at least 44 incidents involving the fitness balls. EB Brands sold three million of the fitness balls from May 2000 through February 2009. They were recalled [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09196.html]in April 2009. At that time, there were 47 reports of the fitness balls unexpectedly bursting when overinflated by consumers, resulting in injuries, including a fracture and bruises. Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors and retailers to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation, standard or ban enforced by CPSC. In agreeing to the settlement, E&B denies CPSC staff allegations that it knowingly violated the law. FOOT LOCKER: Still in Mediation with "Pereira" Suit Parties ----------------------------------------------------------- Foot Locker, Inc. is still engaged in mediation with the plaintiff in the "Pereira" lawsuit, according to the Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under federal or state wage and hour laws, including allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and uniforms. The Company is a defendant in one such case in which plaintiff alleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws. The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007. In his complaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action. During the course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately 81,888 current and former employees of the Company offering them the opportunity to participate in the class action, and 5,027 have opted in. The Company was a defendant in an additional seven purported wage and hour class actions that assert claims similar to those asserted in Pereira and seek similar remedies. With the exception of Hill v. Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois, all of these actions were either commenced in federal district court or the Company has subsequently removed them to federal district court. On February 25, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel") to consolidate those cases pending in federal court and any similar case hereafter filed to a single case under the United States district court and otherwise consolidating these actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On May 26, 2011, the Panel granted the Company's motion to consolidate those cases with Pereira. During the first quarter, one of these cases was settled for an amount that was not material to the Company and the remaining cases are in discovery stages of proceedings. In Hill v. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of an opt-out class covering certain Illinois employees only. The Company has filed a motion for leave to appeal. The Company is currently engaged in mediation with plaintiff in Pereira and his counsel in an attempt to determine whether it will be possible to resolve these cases. Meanwhile, the Company is vigorously defending them. Due to the inherent uncertainties of such matters, including the early stages of certain matters, the Company is currently unable to make an estimate of the range of loss. Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated subsidiaries, including Pereira and related cases would have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations, taken as a whole. GRUNENTHAL: Thalidomide Class Action to Be Heard in Australia ------------------------------------------------------------- Peta Carlyon, writing for ABC News, reports that Australian thalidomide victims have won the right to have a landmark class action heard on home soil. The pregnancy drug caused mass deaths and birth defects worldwide in the 1950s and 1960s. Melbourne woman Lynette Rowe, who was born without limbs, is leading the Australian action. The drug's manufacturer, Grunenthal, has been fighting to have the case heard in Germany. The company has never been successfully sued in its homeland. But the Victorian Supreme Court dismissed Grunenthal's application. Ms. Rowe's family pleaded with the drug's maker to stop delaying the class action. Her lawyers have warned that the company plans to raise more issues which could further delay proceedings. They say it will not be an easy path ahead. Her father, Ian Rowe, says it is urgent the case now proceed as soon as possible. "Let Lyn have her day in court. Please don't cause any more delay just for delay's sake," he said. "Time is not on our side. Wendy and I are getting older now, I'm almost 80. "We really need to know how Lynette will be provided for when we can no longer do it ourselves." Ms. Rowe cried silently as her father spoke. Her lawyer, Peter Gordon, said more than a hundred thalidomide survivors are now involved in the class action, and more are expected to come forward. He described thalidomide as a "medical and pharmaceutical disaster". Mr. Gordon and a legal team have travelled to Germany in recent weeks to gain access to large volumes of company documents. He said what they have found could influence future cases overseas. "We do believe that a lot of the evidence and the disclosures about what Grunenthal knew are probably matters which have never come to light outside Germany, or in the English speaking world, prior to now," he said. "There may be some new facts that come to light that may be of interest to all thalidomiders, not just in Australia, but in many other countries where it was distributed." Grunenthal has paid out many millions of dollars to thalidomide victims in a number of countries, including in the United Kingdom. But the company has never been successfully sued in Germany and has settled court cases before they reached an adverse judgment. The Australian class action is expected to be heard in Melbourne next year. HAIN CELESTIAL: Sued for Using Synthetic Ingredients in Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Littlehale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Jason Natural Products, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-06342 (N.D. Calif., December 15, 2011) is a class action brought on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers, who purchased Jason Natural brand personal care products containing artificial or synthetic ingredients including, Alpha-isomethyl Ionone, Amyl Cinnamal, Ascorbic Acid and Benzyl Alcohol, beginning December 15, 2007, through the present. Since at least 2007, the Defendants manufactured, packaged, marketed and sold at least 200 Jason Natural brand Products as being "All Natural" or "Pure Natural" despite the fact they contain artificial or synthetic ingredients, Ms. Littlehale alleges. She contends that while the lawsuit is not a personal injury case and no personal injury claim is being asserted, it is noteworthy that Sodium Benzoate and other synthetic ingredients in the Defendants' so-called "All Natural" or "Pure Natural" Products are potentially harmful. Ms. Littlehale is a resident of Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania. Throughout the entire Class Period, she has been very concerned about and tries to avoid using personal care products that are not natural, such as skin creams and lotions that contain synthetic or artificial chemical ingredients. Hence, she is willing to and has paid a premium for products that are all natural and has refrained from buying their counterparts that were not all natural. Hain Celestial is incorporated in Delaware, and manufactures and sells natural health and beauty products under the Jason Natural brand. Jason Natural Products, Inc. is incorporated in California, and manufactures and sells personal care products such as soaps and body washes, hair care products, oral care, toothpaste, deodorants, hand and body lotions, hand sanitizers, sunscreens and lip balm throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 392-8801 Facsimile: (310) 278-5938 E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com - and - Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. Wyatt A. Lison, Esq. STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE LLC Allegheny Building, 17th Floor 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Facsimile: (412) 281-1007 E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com wlison@stemberfeinstein.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C. 10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 836-6000 Facsimile: (310) 836-6010 E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ On December 5, 2011, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") became aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its executive officers, the Company disclosed in its December 7, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class of purchasers of Company common stock during the period from February 17, 2011, through November 10, 2011. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. LEAR CORP: Says Ch. 11 Case Should Block Class Action Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Hilary Russ at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that Lear Corp. on Dec. 16 defended its move to escape potentially massive antitrust litigation, telling a New York bankruptcy judge that the reorganized company's brief stint in Chapter 11 protection should shield it from dozens of class actions. Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, Lear Corporation -- http://www.lear.com/-- is one of the world's leading suppliers of automotive seating systems and electrical distribution and power management systems. The Company's world-class products are designed, engineered and manufactured by a diverse team of approximately 75,000 employees at 205 facilities in 36 countries. Lear's common shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol [LEA]. Lear Corp. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on July 7, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-14326). Attorneys at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, served as the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel. In November 2009, Lear emerged from bankruptcy protection. LOUIS VUITTON: Judge Reverses Customer Info Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- JD Journal reports that the Ninth Circuit on Dec. 15 decided to reverse a court ruling from a lower level regarding a motion filed by Louis Vuitton North America Inc. The motion involved the company asking to remove to federal court the class action lawsuit claiming that it illegally recorded personal information when accepting customers' payments via credit cards, according to Law360. In an unpublished opinion, a panel of three judges claimed that a California federal court made a mistake when it was found that Louis Vuitton had not been able to prove that it could be facing $5 million in claims. The complaint filed was for $1,000 for each violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which allows a court to impose penalties of $250 for the initial violation and then $1,000 for every violation thereafter. "Because the amount in controversy could be as much as $1,000 for each subsequent violation and it is undisputed that there were substantially in excess of 5,000 credit card transactions, the preponderance of evidence shows that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million," the panel said. Louis Vuitton attempted to move the suit to California federal court in July. The case was remanded back to state court by U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz after claiming that the amount of money involved in the lawsuit did not surpass the jurisdictional threshold of $5 million. Judge Lorenz also ruled that neither the allegations nor the evidence offered by Louis Vuitton that any class member was subject to more than one violation at a time. The class in the lawsuit will include all customers from California who had their personal information recorded if they made a purchase during the previous year. This purchasing period included more than 5,000 transactions. Louis Vuitton, in oral arguments, told the court of appeals panel that if the company had made over 5,001 credit card transactions, then they would face a $1,000 fine per transaction. This would then lead to damages exceeding $5 million. The Class Action Fairness Act requires that there be at least 100 members of the class in the lawsuit, which Louis Vuitton failed to show, according to the plaintiffs. The panel did say that the company had over 5,000 transactions for the period in question, which means there would be at least 100 separate credit card customers during that time. The panel for the Ninth Circuit includes Judges William A. Fletcher, Barry G. Silverman and Kim McLane Wardlaw. Deanna Morey is represented by Gene J. Stonebarger of Stonebarger Law. Louis Vuitton is represented by Nicolas Andreas Jampol and Stephen R. Smerek of Winston & Strawn LLP. The name of the case is Deanna Morey v. Louis Vuitton North America, case number 11-56916, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. MEDTRONIC INC: Continues to Defend "INFUSE" Suit in Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association filed a putative class action complaint against Medtronic, Inc. and certain current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading public statements concerning the INFUSE Bone Graft product which artificially inflated Medtronic's stock price during the period. On August 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action complaint expanding the class. Medtronic's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied on February 3, 2010, and pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company says it has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 28, 2011. MEDTRONIC INC: Fully Paid Plaintiffs of Fidelis-Related Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic, Inc. said in its December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 28, 2011, that it fully paid the plaintiffs of the remaining claims arising from its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. On October 15, 2007, the Company voluntarily suspended worldwide distribution of its Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) family of defibrillation leads. Approximately 4,000 lawsuits regarding the Fidelis leads were filed against the Company, including approximately 47 putative class action lawsuits reflecting a total of approximately 9,000 individual personal injury cases. Approximately 2,800 of the lawsuits were commenced in Minnesota state court and approximately 1,200 were consolidated for pretrial proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) rules. On January 5, 2009, the MDL court dismissed with prejudice the master consolidated complaint for individuals and the master consolidated complaint for third-party payors on grounds of federal preemption. The state court judge dismissed the state court cases on similar grounds on October 22, 2009. The federal opinion was affirmed on appeal and the state appeal was dismissed. The Company announced on October 14, 2010, that it had entered into an agreement to settle the pending lawsuits as well as certain unfiled claims subject to opt-out rights by both plaintiffs and the Company, including the Company's right to cancel the agreement. The parties subsequently reached an adjusted settlement agreement pursuant to which Medtronic waived its right to cancel the agreement and agreed to pay a total of $221 million to resolve over 14,000 filed and unfiled claims. Accordingly, the Company recorded an expense of $221 million related to probable and reasonably estimated damages under U.S. GAAP in connection with these matters in fiscal year 2011. Subsequent to October 28, 2011, the Company fully paid the plaintiffs. In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada. On October 20, 2009, that court certified a class proceeding, but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with that matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. METRO TRANSIT: Accused of Tolerating Racial Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that three bus drivers say in a federal class action that the Metropolitan Council dba Metro Transit tolerated and "even encourage(s)" racial discrimination against black drivers. A copy of the Complaint in Austin, et al. v. Metropolitan Council, Case No. 11-cv-03621 (D. Minn.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/19/Employ.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kent M. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM 1632 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 Telephone: (763) 473-0314 E-mail: williamslawmn@aol.com NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Limits Class in Labor Law-Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A California court has determined that Plaintiff Bernadette Tanguilig could not represent employees, who are subject to Neiman Marcus, Inc.'s Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action to those associates who were employed between December 2004 and July 15, 2007, according to the Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC. On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the Company were dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. This complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including without limitation 1) asking employees to work "off the clock," 2) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, 3) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees, and 4) failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts. On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to compel Ms. Monjazeb and a co-plaintiff to participate in the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing a class action in that case. The court then determined that Ms. Tanguilig could not represent employees who are subject to the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action to those associates who were employed between December 2004 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement). The Company says it intends to continue vigorously defending its interests in these matters. Currently, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from these matters. The Company will continue to evaluate these matters based on subsequent events, new information and future circumstances. OHIO VALLEY: Doctors' Class Suit vs. Health Plan Still Tied Up -------------------------------------------------------------- J.W. Johnson Jr., writing for The Intelligencer, reports that while a class action lawsuit involving nearly 200 doctors suing The Health Plan of the Upper Ohio Valley remains tied up in federal court, one doctor took matters into his own hands and was successful in recouping money owed to him for services rendered. Dr. Thomas Wack filed suit in Marshall County Circuit Court, where a partial summary judgment was recently ordered. The lawsuit came about after Wheeling Hospital filed suit against Ohio Valley Health Services & Education Corp., Ohio Valley Medical Center, East Ohio Regional Hospital and The Health Plan for allegedly neglecting to pay millions of dollars in health care claims. The initial claim stated $4.8 million was owed. The amounts owed are for employees of OVHS&E, Ohio Valley Medical Center and East Ohio Regional Hospital who received medical services at other facilities. The lawsuit alleges OV Health System Parties failed to adequately fund the health system plan "because they are presently experiencing severe financial difficulties." The portion of the suit against OVHS&E was dismissed in December 2010 by U.S District Judge Frederick P. Stamp Jr., who ruled OVHS& E and its affiliates have no contractual obligation to pay for medical services rendered to its employees. Additionally, Judge Stamp said only The Health Plan was responsible for providing health care for participants of the benefit plan, and thus the lawsuit has continued against that company alone. However, Dr. Wack and his attorney, Mark Colantonio, who is also the plaintiffs' attorney in the class-action suit, filed their own suit in Marshall County Circuit Court seeking repayment of money owed to Dr. Wack. Though Health Plan officials argued they were unable to pay the bills because of a separate failure to pay by OVHS&E, Mr. Colantonio said Circuit Court Judge Mark A. Karl deemed The Health Plan responsible for paying Dr. Wack an amount he estimated to be more than $3,000. A ruling on liability and damages, as well as interest and attorney fees, has yet to be determined, and no date has been set to review that portion of the case. However, Mr. Colantonio said the message sent by the court is clear. "The Health Plan sets up a network of physicians in this area, and these physicians provide services," he said. "When The Health Plan does this, they must make sure the doctors are paid for their services." Additionally, Mr. Colantonio said while The Health Plan may have been owed money by OVHS&E, that fact does not eliminate The Health Plan's responsibility. "Regardless of whether OV is paying them, they have to pay physicians no matter what," he said. In the meantime, Mr. Colantonio said the class action suit has been held up in federal court by procedural motions and appeals. He said there is no time table for a resolution. OVMC said in a statement on Dec. 16 they have continued to improve their operations and made every effort to significantly reduce their liabilities to vendors and providers over the past year. Calls to The Health Plan were not immediately returned on Dec. 16. PHARMAVITE LLC: Sued Over False Claims on Vitamin E Product ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Pharmavite pushes vitamin E with false or unproven claims that it "helps maintain a healthy heart." A copy of the Complaint in Bohn v. Pharmavite, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-10430 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/19/DietSupp.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com eryan@bffb.com psyverson@bffb.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 600 West 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 PROVIDA LIFE: Sued Over Body Makeover Money-Back Guarantee ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court class action claims that Provida Life Sciences reneges on its money-back guarantee on a "6 Week Body Makeover," which costs $120. ROSS STORES: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Like many California retailers, Ross Stores, Inc. has been named in class action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims. Class action litigation involving allegations that hourly associates have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well as allegations of unpaid overtime wages to store managers and assistant store managers at Company stores under state law, remains pending as of October 29, 2011. In the opinion of management, the resolution of pending class action litigation and other currently pending legal proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. No further updates were reported in the Company's December 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011. STUBHUB INC: Sells "Already Sold" Tickets, Calif. Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Fabozzi, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. StubHub, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-06387 (N.D. Calif., December 16, 2011) seeks relief for the Defendant's violation of the California Business and Professions Code governing the resale of tickets to sporting, musical, theatre and other entertainment events. The Plaintiff asserts that he paid a total of $49.95 for a ticket to attend the Stone Temple Pilots' live performance at the Stone Pony in Asbury Park, New Jersey, that was scheduled for July 26, 2011. However, Mr. Fabozzi alleges that he was refused entry into the concert because the Ticket had already been used by another patron. Subsequent to July 26, StubHub refunded the $49.95 that he paid for the Ticket. Mr. Fabozzi is a citizen of New Jersey. StubHub is a Delaware corporation and its principal place of business is in San Francisco, California. StubHub operates an online marketplace for the resale of tickets to sporting events, concerts, and theater shows. The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall S. Newman, Esq. RANDALL S. NEWMAN, P.C. 37 Wall Street, Penthouse D New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 797-3737 Facsimile: (212) 797-3172 E-mail: rsn@randallnewman.net TINSLEY ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports that a Mesquite healthcare worker has filed a lawsuit against her employer in an effort to obtain payment of overtime wages. Claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Deborah Buxton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed suit against Tinsley Associates, doing business as Exceptional Home Care. In the suit filed on Dec. 13 in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, Ms. Buxton states that the defendant did not pay its healthcare workers any overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate. She claims she has complained about the non-payment but alleges the defendant has not taken any action to correct the FLSA violation. The defendant is also accused of retaliation against Buxton by terminating her employment on Oct. 31. The plaintiff is seeking damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. Ms. Buxton is represented by Casey S. Erick of Erick & Thomas in Dallas. A jury trial is requested. U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case. Case No. 6:11-cv-00666 WARRIOR GOLF: Sued Over False Advertising on "Free" Golf Club ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Warrior Golf Development offers a golf club "Absolutely free," then charges an exorbitant $23.50 "shipping and processing fee." A copy of the Complaint in Geisel v. Warrior Golf Development, LLC, et al., Case No. 30-2011-00530063 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/19/Bogus.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 895 Dove Street, Suite 425 Newport Beach, CA 92600 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 ********* 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 * * *