/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120104.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 4, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 3 Headlines BP: Faces Class Action in Oregon Over Illegal Debit Card Fees CHUHAK & TECSON: NFL Players File Class Action Over Investments CRANWELL RESORT: Ex-Workers Get Class Action Settlement Checks EMCORE CORP: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in New Mexico LIVEDEAL INC: Hearing on Class Certification Motion on Jan. 27 NIKE RETAIL: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Being Sold to Lam Research for Too Little PACIFIC STEEL: Faces $31-Million Labor Class Action PORT AUTHORITY OF N.Y. & N.J.: Retirees Sue Over Free Toll Rights RIGHTNOW TECHNOLOGIES: Class Actions Fail to Halt Oracle Merger RITE AID: Continues to Defend Store Managers' Class Suits RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California STATE OF OHIO: Recent Settlement to Benefit Disabled Residents STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Approves Foster Care Class Action Settlement SUNSET JUNCTION: Concert Ticketholders Mull Class Action UNITED STATES: Tax Fraud Victims File Class Action Against IRS VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Activation Scam VINCE DIXON: San Diego Court Approves Class Action Settlement ********* BP: Faces Class Action in Oregon Over Illegal Debit Card Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims BP and affiliates illegally and secretly add debit card fees to gasoline purchases. A copy of the Complaint in Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, Case No. 1112-17046 (Ore. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/30/BP.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: David F. Sugerman, Esq. DAVID F. SUGERMAN ATTORNEY, PC 707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 228-6474 - and - Tim Alan Quenelle, Esq. TIM QUENELLE, PC 4248 Galewood St. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone: (503) 675-4330 CHUHAK & TECSON: NFL Players File Class Action Over Investments --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Kyle Orton and some 20 other NFL players are suing a Chicago law firm for more than $10 million, claiming they received bad financial advice on investing in energy concerns. The 14-page lawsuit filed last week in Cook County Circuit Court claims that the alleged negligence of Chuhak & Tecson cost Mr. Orton and the other players millions of dollars related to energy investments. The firm did not return several messages left on Dec. 30 seeking comment. The lawsuit only lists two individuals by name as plaintiffs -- Mr. Orton, now 29, a former quarterback for the Chicago Bears and Denver Broncos, and Atlanta lawyer Edward Rappaport. Plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Konicek told The Associated Press the others he represents in the suit are all NFL players he declined to identify. "I think this says a lot about the vulnerabilities of NFL players -- that they rely on the expertise of others," he said. "They relied on people who were supposed to have their best interests in mind." In 2005, the law firm encouraged then-rookie Mr. Orton and others to set up partnerships that, in turn, would invest in producers and sellers of gas generated at landfills, the lawsuit says. The plaintiffs didn't find out until 2010 that they didn't qualify for tax breaks that Chuhak & Tecson allegedly assured them they would benefit from. Instead, the investors "suffered millions of dollars in damages, including loss of investment, adverse tax consequences, penalties, expenses and professional fees," the lawsuit claims. The suit itself doesn't provide an exact figure for how much the parties are seeking in damages, but Mr. Konicek said that, combined, it will be more than $10 million. "This is a lesson to make sure you're dealing with the right people," said Ms. Konicek. "These guys thought they were." CRANWELL RESORT: Ex-Workers Get Class Action Settlement Checks -------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence Fanto, writing for Berkshire Eagle, reports that for 700 current and former employees of Cranwell Resort, Spa and Golf Club, it [was] an especially happy New Year's Day thanks to $7 million in lawsuit settlement checks that landed in their mailboxes last week. The 400 food-service and 300 spa workers are each getting thousands of dollars from a class-action lawsuit that was settled out of court then finalized at a fairness hearing in Berkshire Superior Court in November. The settlements include tips withheld by the resort plus interest, said attorney Paul Holtzman of the Boston firm Krokidas and Bluestein, which represented the workers. Checks for food-service workers also include the difference between their $2.83 an hour "sub-minimum wage" and the $8 an hour state minimum for other employees. "If an employer doesn't pay all your tips, then state law prohibits them from using sub-minimum wages," Mr. Holtzman said. "The tips were withheld, so that violation triggers the other minimum-wage violation." Spa employees who were paid at or above the $8 an hour minimum are receiving settlements representing the 20 percent gratuities that were not paid to them, Mr. Holtzman explained. Last week's checks also include penalty interest charges -- 32 percent for the spa workers and 40 percent for the food-service employees. For Erin Meizinger of New Lebanon, N.Y., now the mother of two and a part-time waitress at Mario's Restaurant on Route 22, the check will "help us get ahead of bills as much as we can." She worked at Cranwell in 2002 and 2003 as a nail technician in the spa and recalled that the non-payment of gratuities was brought up to management. But she said the claim "was ignored or people were pushed out the door. They weren't fair to the workers in general. It's nice to see more people are getting the justice and the money they earned." Ms. Meizinger plans to attend beauty school and then seek employment in a smaller, family-oriented spa. "The worst part was having to lie to the spa-savvy guests who asked us if we were receiving the 20 percent gratuities on their bills," said Polly Karis of Stephentown, N.Y., a massage therapist at Cranwell from January 2003 to June 2007. She plans to use her settlement to help pay for graduate school. Ms. Karis and her fellow workers quickly realized that the gratuities were missing from their paychecks but during a meeting with the spa director, she said, the employees were told to lie to the guests who asked if the tips were being passed on. "My mother always taught me not to lie," said Ms. Karis, adding that she always told the truth to her clients "as tactfully as possible" despite instructions to the contrary. Following complaints by the workers, the resort started referring to the 20% gratuity listed on patrons' bills as a "service charge," she added. "It was very demeaning when the spa director went around the room, asking us to rehearse how we would lie to the guests," Ms. Karis told The Eagle. "That was the biggest frustration for us." But now, Ms. Karis said, justice has been served and the "people who were wronged were compensated. Most important, it sets a precedent for people who work on tips." "There were many wonderful things about working at Cranwell, and I didn't want to be the kind of employee who speaks badly about our employer," she recalled. "It put many of us in a pickle, we were up against having to put a lie between ourselves and the public." According to Mr. Holtzman, "the laws on wages are intended to make sure workers get monies owed in a timely fashion." The food and beverage-service workers did receive 75% of their tips, he said, but the spa employees did not receive any of the 20% gratuity or service charges billed to guests who paid on average $100 apiece for spa services. "Any time there's a settlement in one of these cases it's an important reminder to companies, hotels and spas that tips are required to be paid 100 percent to the employees who earned them," Mr. Holtzman said. The lawsuit, first filed in 2007 by a half-dozen plaintiffs representing the 600 workers, named Cranwell Management Corp. and those who made up the resort's five member executive team at that time. The lawsuit covered unpaid tips dating back to 2002. Cranwell's current general manager, Carl Pratt, who assumed the post last March, has told The Eagle that Cranwell denies any liability and never instructed employees to lie to patrons. "We're pleased to have the matter behind us," he said on Dec. 29, "and we're looking forward to continued support of the economy as we have done for the past 19 years." Similar cases involving withholding of gratuities to employees have been resolved in recent years. In 2008, Canyon Ranch paid out $14,750,000 in an out-of-court settlement to 600 employees who worked there from April 2004 until October 2007. Canyon Ranch also denied any wrongdoing. EMCORE CORP: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in New Mexico --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico appointed a lead counsel in September 2011 in the consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit against EMCORE Corporation, according to the Company's December 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011. On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action (the "Prissert Class Action") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a class of Company shareholders against the Company and certain of its present and former directors and officers (the "Individual Defendants") in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard, Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.). The Complaint alleges that the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy ("GGE") and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the Company's Photovoltaics business segment. The Complaint in the Prissert Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other costs and expenses associated with the maintenance of the action. On or about February 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action (Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.)) (the "Mueller Class Action"), together with the Prissert Class Action, the "Class Actions") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against the same defendants named in the Prissert Class Action, based on substantially the same facts and circumstances, containing substantially the same allegations and seeking substantially the same relief. On September 25, 2009, the court issued an order consolidating both the Prissert and Mueller actions into one consolidated proceeding, but denied plaintiffs motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel. On July 15, 2010, the court appointed IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff ("IBEW"), but denied, without prejudice, IBEW's motion to appoint lead counsel. On August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a renewed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of its selection of counsel. IBEW filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel on May 13, 2011, which the Company did not oppose. By Order dated September 30, 2011, the court appointed counsel to act on behalf of the purported class. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the allegations of the Class Actions. LIVEDEAL INC: Hearing on Class Certification Motion on Jan. 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for class certification in the consumer class action lawsuit against LiveDeal, Inc., is set to be heard on January 27, 2012, according to the Company's December 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011. On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. ("GES") filed a consumer class action lawsuit, captioned Global Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc., against the Company in King County (Washington) Superior Court alleging that the Company's use of activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. GES seeks injunctive relief against the Company's use of the checks, as well as judgment in an amount equal to three times the alleged damages sustained by the members of the class. LiveDeal denied the allegations and is defending the litigation. Early in 2010, the Court denied both parties' dispositive motions after oral argument. After settlement discussions failed to result in resolution, the parties resumed the litigation in the fall of 2011. GES' motion for class certification is briefed and scheduled to be heard on January 27, 2012. The parties continue to discuss settlement pending hearing on the motion. LiveDeal, Inc. provides local customer acquisition services for small businesses. LiveDeal, through its two primary wholly owned subsidiaries (Velocity Marketing Concepts, Inc. and Local Marketing Experts, Inc.), offers an affordable way for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant customers via the Internet. NIKE RETAIL: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Nike makes its store salesmen work off the clock and stiffs them for overtime, a former worker claims in a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in Proctor v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-06711 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/30/Nike.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hoffman, Esq. Leonard Emma, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP 333 Bush Street, Suite 2250 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-1111 E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com lemma@sfemployment-lawyers.com NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Being Sold to Lam Research for Too Little ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Novellus is selling itself too cheaply to Lam Research, in a cash and stock deal worth $3.3 billion. A copy of the Complaint in Ramsay v. Novellus Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 111CV215756 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/30/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. Vahn Alexander, Esq. Christopher Hayes, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com valexander@faruqilaw.com chayes@faruqilaw.com PACIFIC STEEL: Faces $31-Million Labor Class Action --------------------------------------------------- MetalBulletin reports that Pacific Steel Casting Co. is facing its third labor-related challenge in less than a year with a class- action lawsuit seeking an estimated $31 million in damages from the company. In a press conference posted online, Rodriguez's attorney, Timothy P. Rumberger, claimed that Pacific Steel employees who report for work at 5:00 a.m. and perform "hard jobs in very hot conditions" aren't allowed a lunch break until 11:30 a.m. PORT AUTHORITY OF N.Y. & N.J.: Retirees Sue Over Free Toll Rights ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that a retired police officer filed a class action against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for revoking Port Authority retirees' rights to free tolls for life. Thomas Westfield claims the Port Authority "unilaterally revoked [his] promised right to free passage at its Hudson River vehicular crossings," a right that "had been promised upon starting employment at the Port Authority," as "a lifetime benefit." Mr. Westfield, who retired from the Port Authority Police Force in 1998, claims that the Port Authority broke its promise to employees by a vote in November 2010, rescinding their right to free tolls on bridges and tunnels, and canceling their right to free parking at airports the Port Authority manages. Mr. Westfield says the Port Authority promised the free tolls "would be available during their tenure of employment, and for life upon successful retirement." He says the free tolls have been in place since before he started at the Port Authority in 1971. At first, the Port Authority "issued paper passes for such benefit," then "switched to the electronic EZPass to facilitate the process" in 2002. Now the class must pay tolls on the George Washington Bridge, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the Bayonne Bridge, the Goethals Bridge and the Outerbridge Crossing. Free parking at John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty Airports also was revoked. Class members "are now required to pay an amount of up to $12 per crossing" and "an average of $24 for 4 hour parking at their airports." Mr. Westfield estimates the class consists of more than 4,000 retirees says 400 have notified him of claims they filed. He seeks class damages for breach of contract, breach of promise and unjust enrichment. He filed pro se in Morris County Court, apparently as an attorney, signing the complaint Thomas Westfield, Esq. A copy of the Complaint in Westfield v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Case No. MRS-L-3458-11 (N.J. Super. Ct., Morris Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/30/FreeTolls.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Westfield, Esq. 29 Fairchild Place Whippany, NJ 07981 Telephone: (973) 428-0060 RIGHTNOW TECHNOLOGIES: Class Actions Fail to Halt Oracle Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Jodi Hausen, writing for Bozeman Daily Chronicle, reports that RightNow Technologies stockholders overwhelmingly approved the company's merger with Oracle Corporation, despite a class action lawsuit contending the deal was unfair. Nearly everyone present at the special stockholders meeting Dec. 22 voted for the deal, according to a news release. Those voting represented about 87% of RightNow's shares of common stock. Stockholder approval does not seal the deal, however. It is "subject to regulatory approval" and final closing, the statement said. The class action lawsuit filed in Gallatin County District Court on Nov. 4 by the Town of Davie Police Officers Retirement System and Diane Wosek is one of at least four filed since RightNow and Oracle announced their proposed merger in October. Three other lawsuits were also filed in Delaware, where Oracle's subsidiaries are incorporated, according to court documents. The Gallatin County suit names both corporations, RightNow's founder and CEO Greg Gianforte and other board members who retain 16.4% of RightNow's voting power. The lawsuit alleges the merger is unfair to RightNow shareholders and that board members "are in possession of private corporate information," creating a "disparity of knowledge and economic power between them and the public shareholders." The proposed merger undervalues RightNow and does not give stockholders the ability to reap the rewards of future success, the lawsuit states. When RightNow announced the deal, it valued stocks at $43 per share, which is about what it was trading for on the NASDAQ on Dec. 30. But the plaintiffs claim the company's value will rise, citing a CNBC report that said one of RightNow's 2011 quarterly net income earnings of $1.4 million trumped the previous year's same quarter by 138%. The proposed merger is the result of a "flawed" process that yielded an unfair price, the suit says, and was designed to ensure the merger terms were preferential to Oracle and company insiders. "Any economic upside (of the deal) will enrich Oracle," and if it goes through, the principal stockholders will be "unjustly enriching themselves at the expense or to the detriment of the public shareholders," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit also claims that company insiders are obtaining "lucrative benefits" in the deal, citing a Bloomberg report that Mr. Gianforte's stake in RightNow -- 20% -- is worth about $290 million in the deal. RightNow's attorney, Jim Goetz, filed a brief the day after stockholders approved the acquisition, saying the class action lawsuit is now moot. The only thing plaintiffs sought was to prevent the shareholder vote from taking place "on the basis that the proxy statement soliciting the vote was materially misleading," Mr. Goetz wrote. They failed to ask Park County District Judge Nels Swandal, who is presiding over the case, to stop the voting process. "Dec. 22, 2011, came and went, the shareholder vote has now taken place" and, at this stage, a court order requiring corrective measures "would be an exercise in futility and frivolity," Mr. Goetz wrote. Messrs. Goetz and Gianforte declined to comment for this story. The plaintiffs' attorney, John H. Tarlow, was unavailable for comment on Dec. 30. RITE AID: Continues to Defend Store Managers' Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation is currently a defendant in several putative collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal or state courts in several states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Washington and Oregon, purportedly on behalf of, in some cases (i) current and former assistant store managers and co-managers or (ii) current and former store managers and assistant store managers, respectively, working in the Company's stores at various locations. The lawsuits allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of certain state wage and hour statutes. The lawsuits seek various combinations of unpaid compensation (including overtime compensation), liquidated damages, exemplary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest as well as attorneys' fees and costs. In one of the cases, Craig et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, brought on behalf of current and former assistant store managers, the Court, on December 9, 2009, conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as assistant store managers since December 9, 2006. Notice of the Craig action was sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 6,700 current and former assistant store managers) and approximately 1,100 joined the Craig action. The Company has filed a motion to decertify the class which is presently pending. In another of the cases, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, brought on behalf of current and former store managers, the Court, on April 2, 2010, conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. No further updates were reported in the Company's December 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 26, 2011. At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, or any possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuits. The Company's management believes, however, that the lawsuits are without merit and not appropriate for collective or class action treatment. The Company is vigorously defending all of these claims. RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation is currently a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws pertaining primarily to pay for missed meals and rest periods. These lawsuits purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, or any possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuits. The Company's management believes, however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action treatment. The Company is vigorously defending all of these claims. No further updates were reported in the Company's December 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 26, 2011. STATE OF OHIO: Recent Settlement to Benefit Disabled Residents -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the recent settlement of a class-action lawsuit over Ohio's process for reviewing some healthcare claims is expected to speed things up for thousands of disabled residents waiting on benefits to start. People whose disability determination applications have been pending for more than 90 days will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, The Blade in Toledo reported. The agreement, filed in early December in U.S. District Court, also sets a timeline for the agency to ensure that most applicants don't face such lengthy waiting periods. "This is a huge victory for people who are marginalized," said Tim Harrington, executive director of the Ability Center of Greater Toledo. "It's really important that folks in Ohio who are poor and disabled have access to health care, and that's what this does." W. David Koeninger, one of the lawyers who filed the case on behalf of the center and five residents, said the first round of applications should be processed and applicants should be eligible for benefits to start the new year. He said more than 22,000 applications had been pending with the department for more than 90 days when the lawsuit was filed in 2010. It claimed the state's slowness in reviewing cases caused unreasonable delays and suffering for some people who sought Medicaid services but had to wait for decisions on their claims. Job and Family Services already has reduced the application backlog to about 5,000, department spokesman Ben Johnson told the newspaper. The agency did not admit any fault or wrongdoing under the agreement, which calls for an outside vendor to be hired to help gather medical documentation needed for application processing. "Once a vendor is in place, the wait time will continue to be reduced," he said. "Ultimately we will determine disability and process these applications within the 90-days time limit." By July 1, the agency must ensure that 90 percent of its applications are being processed within that time frame, as long as the caseload remains below a specified monthly level, according to the deal. Mr. Koeninger said the five named plaintiffs from the lawsuit are now getting treatment they needed. STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Approves Foster Care Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Ginnie Graham, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a proposal to settle a federal class-action lawsuit over the state's foster care system was approved by the state on Dec. 29 but an attorney for the plaintiffs said they are preparing for trial. The Contingency Review Board -- composed of Gov. Mary Fallin, House Speaker Kris Steele and Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman -- voted to approve a proposed settlement of the lawsuit on Dec. 29. However the board made changes to the settlement which will need to be considered by the Department of Human Services commission, officials said. That was expected to occur this week. Tulsa attorney Fred Dorwart, who is assisting plaintiff Children's Rights in the litigation, said he has not seen a copy of the amendments suggested by the board. "We viewed the agreement we made with the department as a win-win for the state of Oklahoma, and we are disappointed we'll not be able to proceed with the settlement agreement." A pre-trial hearing is set for Jan. 6 and non-jury trial slated to begin Feb. 21. "We are preparing for trial at this point," Mr. Dorwart said. "We are under a gag order and cannot discuss much about this case. But there will be ongoing discussions. "This type of case cannot be settled at the courthouse steps. We are on a time frame and that time frame has essentially expired. We are out of time." The board met in executive session on Dec. 29 for about an hour before making the announcement. The board also discussed the settlement for three hours on Dec. 28 in executive session but did not reach an agreement on whether to accept the terms, which have not been released. The lawsuit was filed in February 2008 by New York-based child advocacy group Children's Rights. The suit, filed in the Northern District of U.S. District Court, sought reforms in the child welfare division of the state Department of Human Services. The board is required by state law to meet when the Legislature is not in session to vote on any settlements that may cost taxpayers at least $25,000. In a related development, Oklahoma City attorney Jerry Fent handed a written protest to the board, claiming it is unconstitutional based on the "separation of powers" clause. Mr. Fent cited three previous court cases and an attorney general opinion that limited the board's authority. Gov. Fallin said on Dec. 28 it is in the best interest of Oklahoma to avoid a costly legal battle. "But it has to be sensible," she said. A pretrial conference is set for Jan. 6 with the non-jury trial scheduled to start Feb. 21. No monetary awards will be given to the class or nine original plaintiffs. Children's Rights has argued reforms will be more cost-efficient. The DHS commission spent five hours in executive session Dec. 20 discussing a proposed settlement. The oversight board voted 6-3 for the settlement, with commissioners Jay Dee Chase, Aneta Wilkinson and Richard DeVaughn voting against it. In court filings, Children's Rights claimed that foster children were scalded in bath water, sexually molested, beaten with tree switches and belts and hit in the face. It argues these abuses are systemic problems, not isolated incidents. U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell agreed the suit should be expanded into a class action, which occurred in May 2009. The class is defined as current and future foster children. DHS has more than 8,000 children in foster placements. The original plaintiffs ranged in age from 4 months to 16 years and had suffered abuse while in DHS foster-care placements. Children's Rights sought reforms such as caseload limits, education and training for foster families and staff, additional placement options for foster children, improved monitoring, quality assurance and appointment of a neutral monitor. DHS has spent about $7 million on outside attorneys to defend the lawsuit, and commissioners approved another $2 million for future costs. Because it agreed to the settlement, DHS likely will have to pay some or all of the plaintiffs' legal fees. Children's Rights has launched legal challenges seeking improvements in child welfare systems in at least 15 states and jurisdictions since 1995, with all but two ending in judicial consent orders that settled the cases. Legal fees have included $10.5 million in Georgia and $6.5 million in Michigan. The Oklahoma lawsuit has more than 775 docket entries, more than any other case the organization has litigated, said Children's Rights Executive Director Marcia Lowry. Commissioners came under criticism earlier this year after some high-profile child deaths where DHS workers were involved. Gov. Fallin appointed two new members -- former Oklahoma County District Attorney Wes Lane of Oklahoma City and businessman Brad Yarbrough -- who took over as commission chairman in October. A major point mentioned in judicial orders and disputed among the parties is caseload per DHS worker. Despite having a federally recognized tracking system, DHS does not have a definitive number for average caseload. Estimates show that 68% of foster children have workers with 20 or more cases and that 15 percent have 30 or more cases. Accrediting body standards call for no more than 18 children per caseworker, or eight per caseworker in the case of special needs children. SUNSET JUNCTION: Concert Ticketholders Mull Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- mxdwn.com reports that in response to the cancellation of the Sunset Junction Music Festival earlier last year, some angry ticketholders are looking to file a class-action lawsuit against the company behind the concert. This could result in almost $1 million in lost sales. The suit would be against the Sunset Junction Neighborhood Alliance whose organizer, Michael McKinley has been MIA since the show was denied a city permit in late August. Leading the suit is Michelle Stimson, a tax law attorney and ticketholder who is one of many who want their money back. She made her opinion known on Sunset Junction's Facebook page, and has gotten some others interested in her goal. Those who want to join the suit can e-mail her at MichelleMStimson@yahoo.com Ms. Stimson is not the only one to voice her idea. Other angry customers had written their concerns on the Facebook wall as well. Since then the page has been removed. Most of the concert sales had been sold through the Festival's Web site. Ms. Stimson had voiced her concern over where the money has gone from the tickets that have not been refunded. Following all this, some buyers have had success getting a reimbursement from their debit card companies. Unpaid debt, almost $400,000, was the reason for this cancellation. The Festival had been going on for over 30 years, originating in the Silverlake area of Los Angeles, CA. It began as a peace event to bring gay and latino communities together. Silverlake has also benefited financially from the Festival, in the way that it has brought tourists to the local businesses. UNITED STATES: Tax Fraud Victims File Class Action Against IRS -------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Silvestrini, writing for The Tampa Tribune, reports that as far as Jay Gordon is concerned, the Internal Revenue Service was the victim of someone who used Mr. Gordon's identity to commit tax fraud, and now Mr. Gordon and his wife are victims of the IRS. "I know we're not the only ones," said Mr. Gordon, who described his predicament as "ridiculous, asinine, whatever you want to call it." The Gordons have filed what they hope will be a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. government on behalf of a growing number of Florida residents who are having trouble getting their tax refunds because someone else filed tax returns to obtain fraudulent refunds in their names. Law enforcement authorities in Tampa say tax refund fraud has exploded in the area, with postal inspectors intercepting what they estimate to be hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulent tax refund checks. Victims of identity theft have expressed near universal frustration with how the IRS has handled their cases. Lawmakers in Washington have introduced legislation and convened hearings to address the issue. "We're basically not receiving what's ours because somebody else did something fraudulently," said Mr. Gordon, who teaches psychology at Tarpon Springs High School. "And I just don't understand why it's affecting us." Mr. Gordon said he has "a high level of frustration" with the IRS. "All they try to do is just sort of placate you, and it's just ridiculous because you know it's going on with a lot of people." Mr. Gordon said he and his wife, Christine, first learned of the tax fraud when they received a letter from the IRS in March stating that the agency wanted to audit his tax return. There were two problems with that: Gordon and his wife always filed taxes jointly, and they hadn't even filed their taxes yet. Finding out about the fraud was "a little bit surreal and very unnerving," Christine Gordon said. When they called the IRS, after being put on interminable hold, they were told someone must have stolen their identity. Jay Gordon said they were told to file an identity theft affidavit, which they did. After that, they continued to get letters informing them of an audit. He said he called the IRS and said, "Don't you know that we have filed as identity theft, and you need to back off." The response, he said, was, "Well this department doesn't communicate with this department. Their bureaucracy is just, 'wow.' " Finally, around June, the audit letters stopped. "You're on hold, and then you're transferred from one ill-informed representative to another," added Christine, a licensed massage therapist. The day after the Gordons attempted to file their electronic tax return, they were notified that their return was rejected. No one would tell them how much of a refund the criminal obtained in his name. But the IRS has still failed to send the Gordons their $2,500 refund. "I've called countless times," Jay Gordon said, "and we've got plenty of things coming up that we need to pay for." He estimated he's called the IRS between 10 and 15 times, being put on hold each time for up to an hour. Frequently, he said, he's told someone will call him back. But no one ever does. Contacted on Dec. 30, the IRS released a written statement about the Gordons' lawsuit, saying they couldn't legally address the specifics of an individual case. "We understand that this is a frustrating process for identity theft victims, and we share their frustrations," the statement said. "These are some of the most complex cases we handle. The IRS is firmly committed to working with people to take care of these issues as quickly as possible. We have been working hard to speed up resolution of refund fraud cases and help get these fixed promptly for taxpayers. We have put more people into this area to help resolve these cases as fast as we can." The Gordons may have an uphill battle in court, as class-action lawsuits have been difficult to bring in recent years. But their attorney, James A. Staack of Clearwater, said he thinks the prospects are good that a federal judge will give his approval to the class-action status of the suit. "I think the class can be certified based on the existing rules and case law because everybody is experiencing the same problem," Staack said. "The IRS owes them a refund; they've applied for a refund . . . Everybody in the class we've defined has done that and the IRS has failed and refused to give them the money they're entitled to. "It's not the IRS' money; it's not the government's money; it's the taxpayers' money as of Jan. 1. Our position is they're withholding the taxpayers' money." VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 27 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Veolia Environnement S.A. American Depositary Shares during the period between April 27, 2007, and August 4, 2011. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Dec. 27. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/veolia/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Veolia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Veolia operates utility and public transportation businesses. The Company supplies drinking water, provides waste management services, manages and maintains heating and air conditioning systems, and operates rail and road passenger transportation systems. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that Veolia was materially overstating its financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices; (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; (c) that Veolia failed to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the United States, and for Southern Europe; (d) that the Company's revenues were being hampered by the renewal of some of its major concession contracts; and (e) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects. On August 4, 2011, Veolia announced its half-year results, for the period ended June 30, 2011. For the half year, the Company reported consolidated revenue of EUR16,286.7 million. Moreover, defendants reported operating income of EUR252.2 million, compared to EUR1100.7 million in the prior year period, due to "non- recurring write-downs amounting to EUR686 million (principally in Italy, Morocco and the United States)." The Company stated that it would exit certain businesses and certain geographies, including its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the United States and in Southern Europe. In reaction to these announcements, the price of Veolia ADSs fell $4.66 per share, or over 22%, to close at $16.10 per share, on heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Veolia ADSs during the Class Period. Plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta. The firm 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, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Activation Scam -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that In Touch Concepts dba ZCom demands billions of dollars from Verizon Communications, Vodafone, Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems and others, in a class action alleging monkey business in prepaid cell phone service. A copy of the Complaint in In Touch Concepts, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., Index No. 653635/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/30/Telecoms.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Batra, Esq. Todd B. Sherman, Esq. Michael W. Kennedy, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF RAVI BATRA, P.C. The Batra Building 142 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1993 - and - John L. Sampson, Esq. 134-27 154th Street Jamaica, NY 11434 Telephone: (718) 272-8470 VINCE DIXON: San Diego Court Approves Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- San Diego, California lemon law attorney Michael R. Vachon, Esq., on Dec. 31 disclosed that the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego has granted final approval of the class action settlement in Kinney v. Vince Dixon Ford, Inc., et al. (Case No. 37-2010-00059153). Vince Dixon Ford, Inc. owns and operates the popular dealership "Ken Grody Ford" in Carlsbad, California. Lead Plaintiff Brenda Kinney and the certified class were represented by the Law Office of Michael R. Vachon, Esq., a California lemon law attorney in San Diego, California. Lawsuit's Allegations Against Ken Grody Ford Lead Plaintiff Brenda Kinney alleged (through her San Diego lemon law attorney) that Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad wrongfully failed to itemize and disclose the charges for optional items included in her vehicle lease contract. She further alleged that Ken Grody Ford had failed to properly itemize and disclose the charges for optional items in all of the class members' automobile lease contracts. Although such conduct is not prohibited by the California lemon law, Ms. Kinney's San Diego lemon law attorney alleged that Ken Grody Ford had violated several California consumer protections statutes, including California's Vehicle Leasing Act and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Settlement Payments to Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad Customers On December 23, 2011, the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego granted final approval to the class action settlement negotiated by Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad and Ms. Kinney's California lemon law attorney. The settlement covers all California consumers who (1) leased vehicles from Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad, (2) who purchased optional items along with their leases, the charges for which were not itemized in the lease contracts, and (3) whose lease contracts terminated on or after September 7, 2009. Under the settlement, class members will receive settlement payments of $200 each. Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad has also agreed to submit to an injunction to be issued by the San Diego County Superior Court that will require it to enact a corporate policy requiring its employees to properly disclose the charges for optional items in all future automobile lease contracts. The Settlement Administrator is expected to begin mailing the settlement checks to class members in January, 2012. If class members have any questions about this lawsuit or the class action settlement, they should call San Diego lemon law attorney Michael R. Vachon, Esq. at (858) 674-4115, or they can call the Settlement Administrator Kurtzman, Carson Consultants at (866) 298-8511. The Law Office of Michael R. Vachon, Esq. is located in San Diego, California. It specializes in the California lemon law. ********* 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. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2012. 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 Peter Chapman at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *