/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120125.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 25, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 17 Headlines 1100 LLC: Sued Over Insurance Policies Issued by Mt. Hawley AIR CANADA: No Immunity From Provincial Consumer Law, Judge Says APPLE: Hagens Berman Amends E-Book Price-Fixing Class Action ARMTEC: Sutts Strosberg Gets Court OK to Handle Class Action BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces 2nd Suit Over Proposed Sale to Forsyth BP: May Face Up to $20 Billion in Fines Over Oil Spill CARRIER IQ: Accused of Wiretapping by Installing Covert Software CITY OF OTTAWA, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over EI Benefits COSTA CROCIERE: Codacons to Launch Class Action FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend Class Suit in California GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: Judge Certifies Steel Plant Class Action MADISON-KIPP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Pollution MERCK FROSST: Settles Vioxx Class Action in Canada MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal Remains Pending in Canadian Supreme Court PERKINELMER INC: Caliper Settles Acquisition-Related Class Suit ROYAL CANADIAN: Former Female Members to File Class Action SEQUENOM INC: New York Court Approves IPO Suit Settlement SEQUENOM INC: To Raise Capital After Class Action Settlement SIX FLAGS: Court Allows Norwalk Virus Class Action to Proceed VANCOUVER SCHOOL: To Send Out Class Action Notice to Students ********* 1100 LLC: Sued Over Insurance Policies Issued by Mt. Hawley ----------------------------------------------------------- Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. 1100 L.L.C. a/k/a 1100 Dearborn LLC; Berger Realty Group, L.L.C.; and Hailee Bloom, Individually and as Representative of Similarly Situated Persons, Case No. 2012-CH-01968 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., January 19, 2012) seeks a declaration that Mt. Hawley owes no insurance coverage obligations to 1100 Dearborn and Berger Realty. This is in connection with a putative class action lawsuit filed against them by the underlying plaintiff in the case styled Hailee Bloom, Individually and as Representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. 1100 LLC a/k/a 1100 Dearborn LLC & Berger Realty Group, LLC, Case No. 11 CH 2509, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division under certain policies of insurance that Mt. Hawley issued to 1100 Dearborn and Berger Realty. The Complaint filed in the Underlying Action alleges that Berger Realty was the lessor and authorized management agent for the building's owner and served as the "landlord" of the Plaintiff's dwelling unit. The Complaint alleges that 1100 Dearborn and Berger Realty violated the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Chicago Municipal Code, by failing to provide the Underlying Plaintiff with an RLTO summary and separate summary of security deposit interest rates at the time the Underlying Plaintiff's rental agreement was initially offered or renewed in accordance with the RLTO. Mt. Hawley is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Peoria, Illinois. 1100 Dearborn and Berger Realty are Illinois limited liability companies, which conduct business in Cook County, Illinois. Hailee Bloom is a resident of Cook County, Illinois, and is a tenant of a building located at 1100 N. Dearborn, in Chicago, Illinois. The Underlying Plaintiff has been named as an interested party in this lawsuit to be bound by the judgment herein. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Duffy, Esq. Elizabeth M. McGarry, Esq. TRESSLER, LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 627-4000 Facsimile: (312) 627-1717 E-mail: mduffy@tresslerllp.com emalone@tresslerllp.com AIR CANADA: No Immunity From Provincial Consumer Law, Judge Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steffan Ileman, writing for Digital Journal, reports that a BC Supreme Court judge dismissed on Jan. 18 Air Canada's claim that provincial consumer law is inapplicable to Air Canada as a federally regulated undertaking. Other airlines are also affected by the decision in the fuel surcharge class action. After about eight months of deliberation Madam Justice Adair of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Air Canada's motion that the Business Practices & Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) is inapplicable to Air Canada, or its partner Lufthansa. The airlines are being sued by passenger B.Unlu in a class action on allegations that they misrepresented a fuel surcharge as a tax on his tickets. Similar class actions have been filed under BC's provincial consumer protection law by other passengers against British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Delta Airlines and Japan Airlines through the North Vancouver law firm Poyner Baxter. At a hearing held May 9 to 11, 2011, the airlines' legal counsel David Neave argued that the Canada Transportation Agency has exclusive jurisdiction over aviation and all matters related to air tariffs and surcharges. Airlines' claim to immunity from the reach of provincial consumer law under the constitutional doctrines of federal paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity was vehemently opposed by the Government of British Columbia who sent two lawyers from Victoria to Vancouver to fight the motion. Federal government did not respond to the airlines' Notice of Constitutional Question. James Poyner representing the plaintiff said the airlines made a last ditch effort on January 13 by bringing to the judge's attention the federal government's recent initiative to regulate airline advertising. In dismissing the motion, Madam Justice Adair stated, however, that the plaintiff's claim is not about advertising, or tariffs, or the plaintiff's challenge to the airlines' right to collect a fuel surcharge, but about the misrepresentation of the surcharge. She found some of their arguments to be based on a false premise, and some "bordering on absurd." She directed the parties to move forward to a certification hearing. A class action must be certified by the court before it can go to trial. Fuel surcharge is coded as "YQ" or "YR" on an airline ticket. In its Response to Civil Claim filed November 23, 2010 with the BC Supreme Court, Air Canada blames its agents for the alleged misrepresentation and claims that Air Canada did not receive or retain the YQ amount from the Plaintiff. Any amount collected from the passenger was collected on behalf of its agent Intair, and not on behalf of Air Canada, claims the airline. Airline tickets are issued electronically by what is called in the travel industry a CRS (Computer Reservation System) or GDS (Global Distribution System) from information fed into the system by the airlines. Travel agents have no control over the contents or representation of this information. APPLE: Hagens Berman Amends E-Book Price-Fixing Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Josh Ong, writing for Apple Insider, reports that even as Apple unveiled new partnerships with publishers focusing on ebooks and digital textbooks earlier last week, lawyers have amended a class- action lawsuit against Apple and five of the six big publishers accusing them of "deep antagonism" toward Amazon and its pricing scheme. Law firm Hagens Berman filed the original lawsuit last August on behalf of a group of consumers who allege Apple and most of the publishing industry colluded to introduce an agency e-book pricing model for the iBookstore to disrupt Amazon's wholesale model. HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster were named in the legal action. Random House was the only "big six" publisher left off the lawsuit, as it had elected not to sell its books using the agency model on iBooks for nearly a year before eventually caving last March. The updated complaint, submitted on Jan. 20, contains new allegations, as well as information believed to support its case, such as quotes from late Apple CEO Steve Jobs and a number of publishing executives. "The information we've included in this new filing shows the deep antagonism that publishers had toward Amazon for its consumer- friendly pricing," said Steve W. Berman, managing partner at the firm and lead counsel on the case. "Since we began the action last August we've uncovered statements from executives at several publishers that demonstrate they viewed Amazon as a significant threat to the long-term survival of their profitability." Mr. Berman went on to assert that publishers took drastic and illegal action to protect their profits as their traditional business models were threatened. "We intend to show that the big publishers saw the sea change in the delivery of books, and agreed to a price-fixing conspiracy as a last-gasp attempt to maintain profit margins," he said. The amended complaint gathered several possibly incriminating quotes from publishing CEOs. For instance, David Young, Chairman and CEO of Hatchett Book Group, said on record in 2009 that Amazon's $9.99 e-book pricing could represent "game over" for the publishing industry if it was "allowed to take hold in the consumer's mind." Macmillan CEO John Sargent stated in a blog post that the agency model had made the market "stable and rational" by righting a "fundamentally unbalanced" situation. Meanwhile, Hatchett executive Arnaud Noury allegedly told an Amazon executive that a small price increase of two to three dollars would alleviate the "industry" problem. "Noury's meeting with Amazon is just one piece of a growing body of evidence that that the publishers were coordinating a plan to force Amazon to increase e-book prices, one way or another," Mr. Berman said. The lawsuit even drew upon Walter Isaacson's biography on Jobs by including the following excerpt as supposed evidence of a price- fixing conspiracy: "Amazon screwed it up. It paid the wholesale price for some books, but started selling them below cost at $9.99. The publishers hated that -- they thought it would trash their ability to sell hard-cover books at $28. So before Apple even got on the scene, some booksellers were starting to withhold their books from Amazon. "So we told the publishers, "We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway." But we also asked for a guarantee that if anybody else is selling the books cheaper than we are, then we can sell them at the lower price too. So they went to Amazon and said, "You're going to sign an agency contract or we're not going to give you the books." "Given the situation that existed, that was best for us was to do this aikido move and end up with the agency model. And we pulled it off." According to the complaint, following the release of the iPad and iBooks, the five publishers raised e-book prices by 30 to 50 percent and "completely changed the competitive pricing landscape that had existed for decades in the industry." "As a direct result of this anticompetitive conduct as intended by the conspiracy, the price of eBooks has soared," the filing alleged. "The price of an eBook in many cases now approaches -- or even exceeds -- the price of the same book in paper even though there are almost no incremental costs to produce each additional eBook unit." The lawsuit is asking for "damages for the purchasers of e-books, an injunction against pricing e-books with the agency model and forfeiture of the illegal profits received by the defendants." From Kindle 1 to iBooks 2 Amazon made waves in November 2007 when it released its Kindle e- reader. The device was billed as the "iPod of reading" and quickly sold out. Adoption of e-books was aided by the fact that Amazon was willing to sell some titles at a loss in order to satisfy both customers' expectations and publishers' profit margins. However, publishers chafed at Amazon's insistence on low-priced e- books. They also reportedly feared that the online retailer would eventually use its market power to reduce their share of profits for both e-book and physical book sales. Recognizing a market opportunity, Apple stepped in to offer its upcoming iPad tablet and accompanying iBooks app as a possible alternative to Amazon. The tablet and accompanying e-reader software were unveiled in January 2010. At the time, Jobs credited Amazon with pioneering the e-book market, while noting that Apple intended to improve on its model. "We're going to stand on their shoulders and go a bit further," he said. According to one survey, 2010 e-book revenue jumped up more than 1200 percent from publishers' 2008 numbers. Net sales increased to 114 million in 2010 as the Kindle and iPad installed bases grew. Amazon, in turn, stood on Apple's shoulders late last year to release the $199 Kindle Fire tablet. The device represented Amazon's first foray into the tablet industry, quickly selling millions of copies. The online retailer is looking to join the iPad in offering colorful, interactive and multimedia e-books. Mr. Jobs reportedly communicated to publishing executives last June that he had a vision to revolutionize the textbook industry with the iPad, but he unfortunately did not live to see it realized. Apple on Jan. 19 held a media event in New York City to announce several new e-book and education initiatives. The Cupertino, Calif., iPad maker released iBooks 2 with additional features for e-books. It also announced an iBooks Author tool that can create digital books to either sell on iBooks or distribute for free. The company also succeeded in bringing the major publishers on board with its plan for interactive digital textbooks. iBooks 2 launched with several textbooks priced at $14.99 or less, a significant discount from traditional paper textbooks. ARMTEC: Sutts Strosberg Gets Court OK to Handle Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Sacheli of The Windsor Star reports that a Windsor law firm has won the right to represent plaintiffs in a class-action suit against an Ontario construction materials company, despite its legendary main litigator being partially sidelined by a stroke. A Superior Court judge on Jan. 20 ruled that Sutts Strosberg will have carriage of the lawsuit against Armtec Infrastructure Inc., a company based in Guelph that makes drainage pipes and precast concrete products used in bridges, road barriers, sports venues and parking garages. Both Sutts Strosberg and London, Ont. firm Siskinds had begun lawsuits against Armtec. While the two firms have collaborated on class-action suits in the past, in this case they could not come to such an agreement. "The reasons for their failure to work together are of no importance to me," said Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas in a written decision delivered on Jan. 20. He made a chart weighing the pros and cons of each firm handling the case, and ruled that, in the final analysis, Sutts Strosberg had the advantage. One of the central issues in analysis was the ability of the Windsor firm to handle the case without class-action pioneer Harvey Strosberg at the helm. Mr. Strosberg suffered a stroke last year that, for a period, left him unable to speak, much less work. He has mostly recovered, but is not handling the same caseload as in the past. In the Armtec suit, Sutts Strosberg proposed that Harvey's son, Jay, who has been a lawyer for nine years but specializes in securities class actions, be lead counsel on the case. Siskinds questioned whether "the best interests of the class would be served by that 'passing of the torch,'" the judge noted. "Counsel have tastefully skirted an issue that I believe I must take on directly. In the past, Harvey T. Strosberg was lead counsel for the firm in class action proceedings. His expertise is legendary. Because of a debilitating stroke his ability to practise at his previous torrid pace has been affected." But, said the judge, "it is not as if Jay Strosberg is being thrown to the lions on his own. He has a talented, supportive litigation team which includes his father." Jay Strosberg said he is heartened by the judge's decision. "We are pleased that the court has expressed its confidence in the entire class action team at Sutts, Strosberg LLP in the aftermath of Harvey's recent stroke," he said. Plaintiffs in the case claim Armtec made misrepresentations before the public offering of shares in March 2011. The company raised $57.7 million in the offering, and, after suspending its dividends in June, saw its share price plummet by 58%. It is alleged that investors lost tens of millions of dollars. The allegations have not been proven in court. Mr. Strosberg can be reached at: Harvey Strosberg, Esq. SUTTS, STROSBERG LLP 600-251 Goyeau Street Windsor, ON N9A 6V4 Telephone: (519) 258-9333 BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces 2nd Suit Over Proposed Sale to Forsyth ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baldwin Technology Company, Inc., is facing a second class action lawsuit in connection with its proposed sale to Forsyth Baldwin, LLC, according to the Company's January 19, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On January 17, 2012, Baldwin Technology Company, Inc. (the "Company") was served with a summons in connection with a class action complaint filed on January 10, 2012, in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, naming as defendants the Company, Forsyth Capital Investors, LLC, Forsyth Baldwin Mezzanine, Inc., Forsyth Baldwin, LLC, Forsyth Baldwin, Inc. and each member of the Board of Directors (the "Board") of the Company, such members being Claes Warnander, Paul J. Griswold, Samuel B. Fortenbaugh III, Rolf Bergstrom, Mark T. Becker, Gerald A. Nathe and Ronald B. Salvagio, regarding the proposed acquisition of the Company by Forsyth Baldwin, LLC (the "Proposed Transaction"). The complaint purports to be on behalf of a putative class of the stockholders of the Company, other than the defendants and their affiliates. The complaint alleges that the individual members of the Board breached their fiduciary duty in connection with the Proposed Transaction, and that the Company, Forsyth Baldwin, LLC, Forsyth Capital Investors, LLC, Forsyth Baldwin, Inc. and Forsyth Baldwin Mezzanine, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks: a declaration that the Proposed Transaction and related agreement and plan of merger are unenforceable; to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, rescission of the Proposed Transaction or an award of rescissory damages; compensatory damages; and costs and attorneys' fees. The defendants believe that the allegations in the class action complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, including opposing any efforts to enjoin the Proposed Transaction; however there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. As reported by the Company in its current report on Form 8-K filed on January 4, 2012, a similar class action complaint was filed on December 29, 2011, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. BP: May Face Up to $20 Billion in Fines Over Oil Spill ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that a government attorney told the federal judge overseeing the Gulf of Mexico oil-spill litigation that BP, Anadarko and Transocean could be subject to $5 billion to $20 billion in punitive fines under the Clean Water Act. "These are civil penalties -- they're not intended to make the people whole. It's intended to punish," Department of Justice Senior Attorney Steven O'Rourke told U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier. Mr. O'Rourke said the Clean Water Act is simple: "any person who is the owner, operator, or person in charge of any vessel . . . or offshore facility from which oil is discharged" will face Clean Water Act fines. Mr. O'Rourke said the company punished simply has to be owner of the vessel or platform that contributes to an oil spill. This would include BP, as part owner of the lease to the well and operator of the Deepwater Horizon rig; Anadarko, as part owner of the lease to the well, and rig owner Transocean. "Each defendant admits that the oil came out of the well through the blowout preventer riser and was discharged into the Gulf of Mexico," Mr. O'Rourke said. "They've admitted they were owners and they've admitted the discharge from the well." The government wants a declaration before the start of the first liability trial that the companies are each liable for more than 200 million gallons of spilled oil. The first trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 27 The base fine applicable under the Clean Water Act is $1,100 per barrel. There are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil, so 200 million gallons is 4,761,905 barrels. If Judge Barbier finds that a party's gross negligence led to the April 20, 2010 spill, which killed 11 and caused the worst oil spill in U.S. history, he could raise the fine per barrel to as much as $4,300. A $1,100 fine for each of barrel would come to $5.24 billion. A $4,300 fine per barrel would come to $20.48 billion. Mr. O'Rourke told the court: "Transocean is saying it came from the well so BP and Anadarko are liable; Anadarko and BP are saying it came from the vessel so Transocean is liable. The government says all of them are correct. They're all liable." Mr. O'Rourke said fines can apply jointly and severally under the Clean Water Act. The companies "all acted in separate ways so they're likely to all get different penalties," he said. "These are civil penalties -- they're not intended to make the people whole. It's intended to punish." Mr. O'Rourke said the fines will be subject to Judge Barbier's "equitable discretion," meaning the judge can reduce fines for certain companies as he sees fit. But whether the fines apply is not in dispute. "So in your view the oil was discharged both from an offshore facility and the well?" Judge Barbier asked. "Yes," said Mr. O'Rourke. "The fines are indisputable. Clean Water Act fines are a punishment. On the penalty side, you get to tailor the punishment to the activity." The courthouse was full. The court strained to hear Mr. O'Rourke. In Judge Barbier's words, the attorney is extremely "soft spoken." Anadarko attorney David Salmons told the court that Anadarko as part-lease holder to the well cannot be held liable for the discharge of oil because the discharge happened on the Deepwater Horizon. Anadarko was a partial owner of the well but had no ownership in the Deepwater Horizon and no control of the well, Mr. Salmons said. Mr. Salmons said the discharge of oil had to have come from either the vessel or the well -- but not both. Later, BP attorney Andrew Langan told the judge BP agrees with Anadarko. "We adopt Anadarko's point: It has to be one or the other and here we say it has to be the vessel," Mr. Langan said. But Transocean attorney Kerry Miller disagreed "Between April 20 when the incident occurred and July 15 when it stopped, if you were to look at who was trying to contain the leak, it was all of the parties," Ms. Miller said. Transocean maintains it is liable only for any oil that made it to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. Citing the Oil Pollution Act, Ms. Miller told the judge that BP, as well lessee, is liable for all subsea oil. Mr. O'Rourke reiterated liability under the Clean Water Act. "Plain language of the statute: any person, any vessel, any entity," that discharges oil can be held liable, Mr. O'Rourke said. Judge Barbier did not say when he will rule on the issue. The hearing followed the regular monthly status conference. During the status conference, Judge Barbier addressed several recently filed motions in limine and several motions in opposition. Among motions filed last week is a U.S. opposition to BP's request to keep particular company documents confidential. Among BP's requests for confidentiality is a statement made by Sir William Castell, of BP's Safety, Ethics, and Environment Assurance Committee. According to the opposition filed by the United States, BP has asked that the following statement be kept confidential under the pretext that it contains "highly sensitive information about the company's recruitment and promotion" efforts: "1. Met with Paul Anderson [another BP senior non-executive director] at Sofitel Hotel 8 to 9 a.m. Paul felt that the company needed a fundamental change in culture and that it would need to move from doing things the BP way to the best way." The United States opposed another BP motion in limine that seeks to exclude employee salary information. The government said it suspects that BP paid a legal assistant with no legal training "an astounding $107,000 per month, which annualizes to a 'consulting fee' of $1,284,000," probably to keep the employee from cooperating at deposition. "As a general matter, the United States has no interest in setting out the compensation of BP employees. However, there are instances where employee compensation is relevant to bias, credibility, or other issues, such as active efforts by BP -- or certainly the appearance of such efforts -- to hide evidence under the guise of faux privilege," the government document states. Judge Barbier said he will rule on as many of the motions in limine as he can before trial, but since it is not a jury trial he does not consider it crucial to rule on all beforehand. The next status conference, which is also the pre-trial conference, is set for Feb. 3. Mr. O'Rourke can be reached at: Steven O'Rourke, Esq. Environmental Enforcement Section Environment & Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044-7611 Telephone: (202) 514-2779 E-mail: steve.orourke@usdoj.gov CARRIER IQ: Accused of Wiretapping by Installing Covert Software ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Branson, Kathryn Graffman, Jason Simons, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Case No. 5:12-cv-00305 (N.D. Calif., January 19, 2012) seeks monetary and equitable relief pursuant to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, also known as the Federal Wiretap Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Carrier IQ preinstalled its software in over 141 Million mobile devices, which software enables the Defendants to unlawfully access, intercept, and collect personal electronic communications and information obtained from private mobile devices, including mobile phones, handsets, and smartphones belonging to the Plaintiffs and members of the Class. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants violated the Federal Wiretap Act by covertly accessing, intercepting, collecting and using personal electronic communications and information belonging to customers using the Defendants' Mobile Devices. The Plaintiffs and the members of the Class own or have owned HTC and Samsung Mobile Devices. Mr. Branson is a resident of Jefferson County, Colorado. Ms. Graffman and Mr. Simons are residents of Arapahoe County, Colorado. Carrier IQ, a provider of mobile services intelligence solutions, is a privately-owned company headquartered in Mountain View, California. HTC America, a Washington corporation, designs, manufactures and sells mobile devices. HTC Corp., a Taiwanese corporation and the parent company of HTC America, designs, manufactures and sells mobile devices. Samsung Electronics America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., a Korean corporation and an established leader in the worldwide electronics market. Samsung Telecommunications, which was founded in 1996 by Samsung Electronics Corporation, is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. STA researches, develops, and markets a variety of personal and business communications products throughout North America, including Mobile Devices. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP 2501 N. Harwood, Suite 1801 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 583-2233 Facsimile: (214) 583-2234 E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com - and - Allan Steyer, Esq. Gabriel D. Zeldin, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 743-2808 Facsimile: (415) 421-2234 E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com gzeldin@steyerlaw.com CITY OF OTTAWA, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over EI Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a Toronto mother's successful battle to win EI sickness benefits while on maternity leave has sparked a C$450 million class action lawsuit against the federal government. Two Calgary women, inspired by Natalya Rougas' precedent-setting case last summer, are taking the legal action to ensure no other new mother who becomes seriously ill during maternity leave has to fight for sickness benefits. The hefty financial claim is intended to compensate an estimated 30,000 mothers whose EI sickness claims have been denied since 2002. That is when Ottawa amended EI legislation to extend EI sickness benefits to working women who become ill during pregnancy or while they are on maternity and parental leave. Ms. Rougas, who was diagnosed with breast cancer during maternity leave in 2010, was awarded the maximum 15 weeks of sickness benefits in addition to her combined 50 weeks of maternal and parental benefits. The award amounted to about C$6,000, or C$400 a week. In their claim filed on Jan. 19, Calgary mothers Jennifer McCrea and Carissa Kasbohm say the EI Commission failed to fully implement the 2002 amendments that were unanimously adopted by Parliament. "We're doing this to force (Ottawa) to change the legislation," Ms. said McCrea, 35. She was diagnosed with breast cancer while on maternity leave last July, the day Ms. Rougas won her appeal. But despite the ruling, McCrea's claim was denied two months later. "We don't want any other mother to have to hire a lawyer and go through all that for a couple of thousand dollars," she said. "It's also for all the other women so they will get what they should have received in the first place," she added. Ms. McCrea, who had a double mastectomy, has since returned to work and is training to run a half-marathon in May. Toronto lawyer Stephen Moreau, who represented Ms. Rougas and is acting for Ms. McCrea and Ms. Kasbohm, argues that the EI commission's "narrow" reading of the 2002 legislation meant that only women who claimed sickness benefits during pregnancy were deemed eligible. Implementation has been "confused and inconsistent," the claim says. The government's Web site has "consistently contained inaccurate information" and EI staff were never advised they must accept a sickness leave claim by someone on parental leave, it says. A government spokesperson refused to comment on the lawsuit on Jan. 19. But last summer a spokesperson said legislative changes are needed to fix the problem. Mr. Moreau thinks the existing legislation is clear and that EI officials are the problem. However, legislation won't likely correct the injustice to thousands of women who have lost out, he said. "I would support the government doing something to help people going forward, but what does that do for all of those individuals who have been denied over the past 10 years," Mr. Moreau said in an interview. "We are talking about individuals who were ill, sometimes quite seriously, while trying to take care of their children, he said. "It is quite shocking." Mr. Moreau can be reached at: Stephen Moreau, Esq. CAVALLUZZO HAYES SHILTON MCINTYRE & CORNISH LLP 474 Bathurst Street, Suite 300 Toronto, ON M5T 2S6 Telephone: (416) 964-5541 E-mail: smoreau@cavalluzzo.com COSTA CROCIERE: Codacons to Launch Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Agence France-Presse reports that an Italian consumer rights' association said on January 21 it is launching a class action suit against U.S. cruise ship operator Carnival for at least $160,000 (EUR123,000) per passenger. "Codacons has decided to join two U.S. law firms to bring this class action against Carnival," the association's co-head Marco Ramadori told AFP, adding that over 100 people "of all nationalities" had joined. "The claim will be filed by Codacons and US firms Proner and Proner and Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik on either Jan. 24 or Jan. 25 in Miami," he said. "We want to get at least $160,000 compensation per passenger, but it could be from two to three times that much considering the fear suffered, the holidays ruined and the serious risks endured," he added. The Costa Concordia was carrying more than 4,200 people when it ran aground on the night of January 13 shortly after starting a seven-day Mediterranean cruise, leaving at least 12 dead and a score still missing. Codacons has already announced plans to file a class action suit of 70 passengers in Italy, but Mr. Ramadori said "it is not clear what outcome to expect because the Italian justice system does not work and is counterproductive." Costa Crociere's boss, Pier Luigi Foschi, who estimated the economic impact of the disaster at $93 million, expressed confidence that the group would be able to "find a solution that, in the material sense, would satisfy" the passengers. FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------- Fuel Doctor Holdings, Inc. is a defendant in a matter entitled Drinville, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Fuel Doctor, LLC and DOES 1-20, Inclusive filed March 16, 2011, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. This purported class action alleges violation of various violations of California statutes principally related to false advertising and consumer protection in that the Company's products are alleged not to provide the benefits claimed. The lawsuit seeks class certification, unspecified damages and exemplary damages, among other things. The lawsuit is in an early stage and the Company will vigorously defend the same. No further updates were reported in the Company's January 19, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. GOV'T OF AUSTRALIA: Judge Certifies Steel Plant Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ A Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice has formally certified a class-action lawsuit against the former operators of the Sydney steel plant and coke ovens sites, something a lawyer involved in the case calls a monumental event. Justice John Murphy had issued an oral ruling last year saying that he would certify the suit against the provincial and federal governments, but his 46-page written decision only came on Jan. 19, some six months later. It was released to the public on Jan. 20. In it, Justice Murphy expanded upon his reasoning for certifying the suit. "The decision of Justice Murphy recognizes that this class action grants access to justice for all those impacted by the pollution which resulted from the steel operations in Sydney," lawyer Ray Wagner said in a news release. "This monumental event allows individuals who have been affected to have their cases heard together at one time." The representative plaintiffs -- Neila MacQueen, Joe Petitpas, Ann Ross and Iris Crawford -- are seeking financial compensation and a medical monitoring fund for contamination associated with the operation of the sites between 1967 to 2000. They are not seeking compensation for personal injury. Now that the suit has been certified, Mr. Wagner said they can work toward resolving it. He noted it allows a legal avenue for individuals who couldn't afford to pursue lawsuits on their own. The certification comes eight years after the lawsuit was first filed. Justice Murphy approved the plaintiff's proposed boundaries, which follow the deposition of lead, for the neighborhoods of Whitney Pier, Ashby and north end Sydney. He ruled that south end Sydney, where data regarding lead levels is not as extensive, will not be included in the class definition. The class could include about 6,000 properties and 15,000 to 20,000 people. It is only the second contested certification approved under Nova Scotia's Class Proceedings Act, and is the first environmental class action certified in the province. None of the plaintiff's claims have yet been proven in court. Mr. Wagner has said it could take three-four more years for the matter to go to trial. A provincial government spokesperson said on Jan. 20 that Justice Murphy's decision is being reviewed and it's too early to say whether it will be appealed. MADISON-KIPP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Pollution ------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Schneider, writing for The Capital Times, reports that a federal lawsuit seeking damages from east-side Madison-Kipp Corp. for contamination of neighboring properties may get a whole lot bigger. Neighbors of the plant off of Atwood Avenue are asking the District Court of Western Wisconsin to certify a class action in their lawsuit against the metal fabricator. At least 34 residential properties neighboring the Kipp manufacturing plant are contaminated or threatened with contamination from chemicals leaching off Kipp's property, claims Shawn Collins, an attorney in Naperville, Ill., who specializes in environmental lawsuits. Mr. Collins represents the owners of seven homes on South Marquette Street who filed suit in October, claiming that vapors containing tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, have moved through the soil to their properties, decreasing their property values and exposing them to hazardous substances. They asked the court to order Kipp to identify where vapor from chemicals on its property have spread, to clean up contaminated areas, and for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Test results released last month by the Department of Natural Resources show concentrations of PCE vapor exceeding health guidelines in the soil of seven backyards on Marquette Street. An amended complaint filed on Jan. 20 in federal court seeks to add to the lawsuit additional property owners and residents living on Marquette and Waubesa Streets who face problems similar to those claimed by the original litigants. "All these families are in the same boat," Mr. Collins says. The way it works, he says, is that two of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider, are bringing the amended suit. If the court certifies a class action, some 80 people who own or live in the additional properties will have the right to join the lawsuit if they wish. The amended lawsuit charges that Kipp failed to investigate and address the migration of chemical vapors off its property and failed to warn neighbors of the contamination or threatened contamination of their properties. It seeks cleanup of contaminated property plus compensatory and punitive damages. "We're seeking punitive damages because we allege that the company was reckless in allowing this problem to occur," Mr. Collins says. Kipp spokesman Mark Meunier says a class action won't change what the company is doing already to determine the extent of contamination off its property. "We're doing what the DNR has asked us to do, and we're voluntarily doing testing without anyone telling us to do it," Mr. Meunier says. While a formal plan for testing and cleanup in and around Kipp property is being finalized with the Department of Justice, testing of additional properties for PCE vapors will be sought, state officials say. MERCK FROSST: Settles Vioxx Class Action in Canada -------------------------------------------------- Will Chabun, writing for Postmedia News, reports that pharmaceutical giant Merck Frosst has settled a class-action lawsuit by Canadians who used its controversial heart drug Vioxx. "We're very happy," said Regina lawyer Tony Merchant, whose firm represented about 1,000 clients. Merchant Law Group was one of 18 firms representing clients in this case. "This agreement is structured to provide certainty and finality toward resolving Vioxx cases in Canada for a fixed amount," said a notice by executive vice president and general counsel Bruce N. Kuhlik which was posted on New Jersey-based Merck Frosst corporation's Web site on Jan. 19. "Under the agreement, there will be an orderly, documented and objective process to examine individual claims to determine qualification." Under terms of the settlement, Merck will pay a total of between C$21.8 million and C$36.8 million to resolve all actions and claims against Vioxx in Canada. The settlement includes fixed costs of C$6 million in legal fees, C$3.5 million for provinces and territories and C$1 million for administrative expenses involved in the settlement. The amount for Vioxx users in Canada will be between C$11.3 million and C$26.4 million, with the amount determined by the final number of eligible claimants. All amounts are in Canadian dollars. "Claims for myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death will be evaluated on an individual basis by an independent administrator based on objective criteria related to various factors, including duration of Vioxx use, age and presence of risk factors. Individual awards for ischemic stroke claims will be a uniform amount not to exceed C$5,000," the posting said. Putting a human face on this legal issue, Mr. Merchant said he was recently thinking of one client, an dedicated amateur athlete who was taking Vioxx for long-distance running "and ended up with a debilitating heart attack that put him in a wheelchair." "For a person like that, the harm was huge and the harm on his family was huge. You ask for a remedy and then you just give up." Because the lawsuits go back to 2004 and reflect medical problems before then, the clients to whom Merchant has been talking share an attitude of, "Oh, God, finally!" As well, "the compensation isn't individually large enough for people to feel that they got this wonderful compensation," Mr. Merchant said Thursday afternoon. "They've got a good conclusion, but not a wonderful conclusion." MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal Remains Pending in Canadian Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation remains pending in the Canadian Supreme Court, according to the Company's January 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011. A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of its PC operating system and certain other software products. The Company obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims that have been made to date in the United States. All settlements in the United States have received final court approval. Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers that the Company may issue varies by state. The Company will make available to certain schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers the Company ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who make claims and are issued vouchers. The maximum value of vouchers to be issued is approximately $2.7 billion. The actual costs of these settlements will be less than that maximum amount, depending on the number of class members and schools that are issued and redeem vouchers. The Company estimates the total cost to resolve all of the state overcharge class action cases will range between $1.9 billion and $2.0 billion. At December 31, 2011, the Company has recorded a liability related to these claims of approximately $524 million, which reflects its estimated exposure of $1.9 billion less payments made to date of approximately $1.4 billion mostly for vouchers, legal fees, and administrative expenses. The three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. On April 15, 2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the class certification ruling and dismissed the case, holding that indirect purchasers do not have a claim. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court. The other two actions have been stayed. PERKINELMER INC: Caliper Settles Acquisition-Related Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit filed in connection with PerkinElmer, Inc.'s acquisition of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. has been settled, according to the Company's January 19, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On November, 7, 2011, PerkinElmer, Inc. completed its acquisition of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. ("Caliper") by merging one of its indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries with and into Caliper such that Caliper became an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of PerkinElmer. On September 12, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Caliper, the board of directors of Caliper, PerkinElmer, Inc. and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co. This action, styled Betty Greenberg v. Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., E. Kevin Hrusovsky, Kathryn A. Tunstall, David W. Carter, Van Billet, Robert C. Bishop, David V. Milligan, Allan L. Comstock, PerkinElmer, Inc. and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co., Case No. 6853 (the "Greenberg Action"), alleges that each of the defendants violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding breaches of fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and other public stockholders of Caliper. The plaintiff in this lawsuit seeks to enjoin the consummation of the proposed merger (the "Merger") of Caliper with PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of PerkinElmer, Inc., pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of September 7, 2011. The plaintiff also seeks an award of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and the grant of other and further equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. On September 16, 2011, a second plaintiff filed a putative stockholder class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the board of directors of Caliper, Caliper, PerkinElmer, Inc. and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co. This action, styled James Dalton v. E. Kevin Hrusovsky, Robert Bishop, Van Billet, David Carter, Allan Comstock, David Milligan, Kathryn Tunstall, Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., PerkinElmer, Inc. and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co., Case No. 6871 (the "Dalton Action"), contains allegations that are substantially similar to those alleged in the previously-filed complaint-namely, that each of the defendants breached and/or aided in breaches of fiduciary duties owed to Caliper's stockholders. The plaintiff in this lawsuit seeks to enjoin the consummation of the Merger, an award of the costs of the action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees, and the grant of further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On October 5, 2011, a third plaintiff, also purportedly a Caliper stockholder, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Caliper, certain directors and officers of Caliper, PerkinElmer, Inc. and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co. This action, styled Elizabeth Chaney v. E. Kevin Hrusovsky, Robert Bishop, Van Billet, David Carter, Allan Comstock, David Milligan, Kathryn Tunstall, Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., PerkinElmer, Inc. and PerkinElmer Hopkinton Co., Case No. 6911, (the "Chaney Action"), contains allegations that are substantially similar to those alleged in the previously-filed complaints-namely, that each of the defendants breached and/or aided in breaches of fiduciary duties owed to Caliper's stockholders. The plaintiff in this lawsuit seeks to enjoin the consummation of the Merger, an award of the costs of the action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees, and the grant of further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On October 6, 2011, Plaintiff Chaney filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction with this Court as well as a Proposed Amended Order of Consolidation, following which, on October 7, 2011, the Court entered an amended consolidation order, consolidating the Chaney Action into the Dalton Action and the Greenberg Action and designating the Chaney complaint as the operative complaint. The three actions are collectively referred to as the "Stockholder Actions." On October 25, 2011, the parties to the Stockholder Actions, without the defendants admitting any wrongdoing or liability of any kind, reached an agreement in principle providing for the withdrawal of the plaintiffs' pending motion for a preliminary injunction and to resolve all claims asserted in the Stockholder Actions. Caliper has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, which was filed with the SEC on October 26, 2011. The agreement in principle contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Caliper's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law). In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Caliper or its successor, which the defendants may oppose. Caliper or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the agreement in principle may be terminated. ROYAL CANADIAN: Former Female Members to File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Gary Mason, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that lawyers are in the final stages of drafting documents to be filed in court as early as this week that are expected to set in motion a class- action lawsuit that threatens to further destabilize one of the most iconic institutions in the country -- the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. At this point, 94 current and former female members of the force from every province have asked to join the suit that is seeking damages potentially in the tens of millions of dollars for alleged maltreatment on the job. It's expected the number of women involved in the action will eventually be well over 100. Regardless of its outcome, the lawsuit, and the vast array of ugly harassment-related charges contained within it, is likely to provoke profound changes within the walls of an organization whose reputation has been shattered in recent years. New RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson has vowed to investigate all harassment complaints thoroughly and take a zero-tolerance attitude towards workplace abuse going forward. Lawyers in British Columbia and Ontario have been working on the case for months. The lawsuit will be filed in either B.C. Supreme Court or federal court on behalf of a couple of as-yet-unnamed officers. It will seek certification as a class action, which will allow others to join as plaintiffs. It generally takes judges between one and two years before rendering a certification decision. Vancouver lawyer David Klein, of Klein Lyons, said there are five tests a judge uses to determine whether the case qualifies for class-action status, including whether there are "questions of fact and law" common to all of the plaintiffs. He said in that regard, any female who joins the force is "guaranteed an environment that is free from gender-based discrimination and harassment." A pledge all the potential plaintiffs assert was broken. Mr. Klein, a class-action specialist, said this case is more complex because it involves a federal agency which receives legal protections that non-governmental agencies do not. But Alexander Zaitzeff, a lawyer from Thunder Bay involved in the case, says it's difficult to imagine a judge not certifying the case given the universal nature of the complaints. Mr. Zaitzeff, a claims lawyer for 36 years, has been interviewing the past and present RCMP members looking to join the lawsuit. Over the course of his career, he says he's handled just about every type of personal injury case imaginable. "And I have to tell you these are some of the saddest stories I've ever heard," he said in an interview. "We're talking about horribly broken lives here. What you often don't think about is the toll harassment takes on the families. Spouses are impacted, relationships and marriages can end. Kids are impacted. "Some of the kids start drinking at younger ages. You see early onset anti-social behavior. They see what's happening to their parent and they take on some of the same symptoms -- it's known as referred post-traumatic stress disorder." Mr. Zaitzeff, who represented families affected by the Dryden air crash of 1989 which killed 24 people, and the Vioxx drug case in the last decade, said the allegations range from sexual assault and harassment to bullying and daily intimidation. He said the members' stories will reveal workplace abuse so egregious it had some considering suicide. Most class-action suits are settled out of court. Mr. Zaitzeff said the courts have awarded individuals anywhere from less than $100,000 to more than $1-million in harassment-related cases in the past. But he said not one person who has contacted the lawyers about joining the suit has asked how much money they stand to make. They have, however, expressed fear of reprisals from co-workers should it be discovered they are part of the suit. Mr. Klein said the identities of the women are protected, if that is their wish. He said the only way they could be revealed is if the case proceeds to court and there are individual adjudications. But before that happened, the plaintiffs would have the opportunity to decide if they wanted to carry on or stop and protect their identity. That could be four or five years after the action is commenced, as class-action lawsuits can take an excruciatingly long time to conclude. Either way, Mike Webster, a psychologist who has treated some of the women who are joining the lawsuit, said he is impressed by their courage. "They are coming from an organization that creates a culture of fear and intimidation," Mr. Webster said. "Those in command use their authority to intimidate others and discourage them from speaking out. It's all part of the para-militaristic hierarchy that exists. That's why so few step outside the group and criticize those in authority. "But now these women have strength in numbers. And that is very assuring." Mr. Klein can be reached at: David Klein, Esq. KLEIN LYONS 1385 West 8th Avenue, Suite 400 Vancouver, BC, V6H 3V9 Telephone: (604) 874-7171 Mr. Zaitzeff can be reached at: Alexander Zaitzeff, Esq. ZAITZEFF LAW OFFICE 395 Fort William Rd. Thunder Bay, P7B-2Z5 Ontario, Canada Telephone: (807) 346-9000 SEQUENOM INC: New York Court Approves IPO Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York formally approved a settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from initial public offerings, according to Sequenom, Inc.'s January 19, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On January 10, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York formally approved a settlement of the class action captioned In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation (Case No. 01-CV-10831) relating to allegations that the Company, its underwriters, and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws because its registration statement and prospectus in connection with its initial public offering contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to be received by and the stock allocation practices of the underwriters. Similar complaints were filed in the same District Court against hundreds of other public companies that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s and 2000, or the IPO Cases. Accordingly, all claims against the Company and its officers and directors in the IPO Cases will be dismissed with prejudice, and its pro rata share of the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance. SEQUENOM INC: To Raise Capital After Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ 24/7 Wall St. reports that the public is getting to take yet one more bet on Sequenom Inc. at a discount. The diagnostics company has never fully recovered from its Down's Syndrome test blunders of the past and shares have languished. The company has disclosed that it plans to sell an undisclosed number of shares in a public secondary offering, but may have priced down around $4.15 or $4.20 per share. Sequenom put out a filing on Jan. 19 noting that the company's cash, cash equivalents and current marketable securities were approximately $84.2 million as of December 31, 2011. The company also noted, "On January 10, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York formally approved a settlement of the class action captioned In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation(Case No. 01-CV-10831) relating to allegations that our underwriters, certain of our officers and directors and we violated the federal securities laws because our registration statement and prospectus in connection with our initial public offering contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to be received by and the stock allocation practices of the underwriters . . . Accordingly, all claims against us and our officers and directors in the IPO Cases will be dismissed with prejudice, and our pro rata share of the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance." SIX FLAGS: Court Allows Norwalk Virus Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Leigh Hornbeck, writing for Times Union, reports that lawyers working on behalf of people who fell ill during their stay at the Six Flags Great Escape Lodge and Indoor Waterpark in March 2008 have permission to move ahead with a lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed years ago, but Six Flags filed for bankruptcy in 2009 and it created an automatic stay on the proceedings, said George Szary, a lawyer for the victims. In 2009, Warren County state Supreme Court Justice David Krogmann ruled the case could go forward as a class action. Mr. Szary said the class could exceed 600 people. After hundreds of people fell ill at the lodge with severe vomiting and diarrhea, the state Department of Health determined the cause as the Norwalk virus, a bug that can be spread by contaminated food, surfaces or direct contact with an infected person. It is highly contagious, but it is rarely serious for healthy people. According to Don Boyajian, whose firm Dreyer Boyajian is working with Mr. Szary's firm, DeGraff, Foy & Kunz, the theme park remained open even as all the guests on certain floors of the hotel became sick and the lodge ran out of towels because so many people were vomiting. The class action alleges Six Flags "failed to implement, monitor and ensure proper sanitary conditions and safeguards at the park." The lawsuit seeks unspecified financial damages. People who wish to opt out of the class must do so by March 30. A legal notice to this effect was set appear on Jan. 20 in the Times Union. Not everyone who stayed at the lodge or fell ill will qualify for the class action. Specific language agreed upon by the lawyers on both sides and the court states potential plaintiffs must have had a gastrointestinal illness while visiting or within 72 hours of leaving, and must have contacted the DOH. Representatives of Six Flags could not be reached for comment. VANCOUVER SCHOOL: To Send Out Class Action Notice to Students ------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Baziuk, writing for CKNW, reports that the Vancouver School Board will send out notice soon to students who paid to attend summer school between 2004 and 2006. The B.C. Supreme Court has ordered the district to do so, as part of a class action lawsuit brought by a Vancouver couple. Lawyer Jim Poyner says the notice will let students know if they are eligible and how they can join or opt out of the suit. "Once the notice goes out, then we'll be in a position to start dealing with individual claims." A notice will also be published in local newspapers. The B.C. government declared fees for summer school illegal in 2007 after a ruling by the court. ********* 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 L. Toledo, 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 * * *