/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120222.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 22, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 37 Headlines APPLE: Settles Class Action Over iPhone 4 Antenna Issue ARTHROCARE CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $74 Mil. BRETT BROS: Sued Over False Claims on Necklaces & Bracelets CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Journey Brakes CHRYSLER GROUP: Keefe Bartels Law Firm Files Class Action COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Diversity Suit DELL INC: 5th Circuit Upholds Securities Class Settlement Approval DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Dismiss Patient Class Action Tossed EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in "Findlay" Suit Remains Pending in Ohio EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Decision in Gallup, New Mexico Class Suit EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Decision in Suit by City of Rome, Georgia EXPEDIA INC: Certification Hearing in "Magill" Suit in May 2012 EXPEDIA INC: "Chiste" Consumer Suit Still Pending in N.Y. Court EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Nassau County, New York Suit EXPEDIA INC: Bluff/Jefferson Class Suit Remains Pending EXPEDIA INC: San Antonio, Texas Suit Still Pending EXPEDIA INC: Defends Consolidated Suit by California Cities EXPEDIA INC: Dismissal of "Lyndhurst" Suit Affirmed in August EXPEDIA INC: Seattle, Wash. Suit Entirely Settled as of Dec. 31 EXPEDIA INC: Trial in "Goodlettsville" Suit Set for March 13 FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Plaintiff Files Motion to Withdraw GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Silverado Truck Electric Seat Warmers HAPPINESS IS PETS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Puppy Mills HOOTERS: Judge Allows Servers' Class Action to Proceed K12 INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Class Action KINROSS GOLD: To Fight Potential Class Actions LOCUSTWOOD MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Urns MAGMA DESIGN: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Calif. METABOLIX INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 7th Cir. Vacates Certification Denial NATIONAL DATA: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act NESTLE HOLDINGS: 8th Cir. Remands Ralston Suit to Mo. State Court NETFLIX INC: Appeal From Judgment in Antitrust Suit Pending NETFLIX INC: Faces Two Shareholder Class Suits in California NETVISION: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Phone Cards OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Remaining Appeal in IPO Suit Dismissed POM WONDERFUL: Sued Over False Claims on Pomegranate Juice POWER BUYING: Sued for Retaining Funds Owned by Store Owners SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Defective TVs STATE OF IOWA: Decision Expected in Hiring Bias Class Action U.S. BANK: Trial Mgmt. Plan in Wage Suit Flawed, Says App. Ct. VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Ord. Share Purchaser Claims Not Ripe for Appeal WAL-MART STORES: Final Hearing Set for Workers Compensation Suit WILINE NETWORKS: Sued Over Undisclosed "Local Access Fee" ********* APPLE: Settles Class Action Over iPhone 4 Antenna Issue ------------------------------------------------------- Josh Ong, writing for Apple Insider, reports that a new settlement reached between Apple and members of a class-action lawsuit over an antenna issue with the iPhone 4 will offer U.S residents who purchased the device $15 in cash or a free bumper case. CNet reported on Feb. 17 that preliminary approval for the settlement had been reached in the deal. The class-action complaint, which drew together 18 separate suits, accused Apple of "misrepresenting and concealing material information in the marketing, advertising, sale, and servicing of its iPhone 4-- particularly as it relates to the quality of the mobile phone antenna and reception and related software." Ira Rothken, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, told the publication: "We believe that the Apple iPhone 4 settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable. We believe that it allows members of the class to choose, and they can get $15 of cash or a bumper, so we believe that type of choice is proportional to the circumstances." It's not immediately clear what limit Apple has set on the total settlement payout, but, given the success of the iPhone 4 over the past year and a half, the company could face requests for hundreds of million of dollars from tens of millions of eligible customers. Of course, any settlement is unlikely to make much of a dent in Apple's savings, as the company has stockpiled close to $100 billion in cash. Not long after the iPhone 4 was released in June 2010, reports emerged that the handset was subject to a loss in signal when held a certain way due to Apple's antenna design, which divided the steel band around the side of the device into multiple antennas. The issue quickly snowballed and was informally dubbed "Antennagate" by some pundits. A number of lawsuits cropped up over the issue just a week after the launch of the iPhone 4. Apple held a press conference that July to address the problem and offered free bumper cases for iPhone 4 units purchased through Sept. 30, 2010. Apple instituted its 2010 free Bumper program via its App Store app. Interested parties will eventually be able to get more information about the settlement at http://www.iPhone4Settlement.combut the Web site is not up yet and is expected to go live in the coming weeks, according to the report. Eligible customers will also be notified of the settlement by e-mail before April 30. Apple redesigned the antenna for the iPhone 4S in order to resolve the previous generation's reception issues. The company promises better reception and fast data transfer speeds with the new design. The iPhone 4S includes new intelligent-switching technology that allows the device to transmit and receive on dual GSM and CDMA antennas. ARTHROCARE CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $74 Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that shares of ArthroCare Corp. dropped on Feb. 17 after the medical product maker reported its fourth-quarter results and forecast low sales growth in 2012. After the markets closed on Feb. 16, ArthroCare said it lost $29.3 million, or $1.06 per share, during the fourth quarter. During the quarter ArthroCare agreed to pay $74 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit against the company and two former officers. The Austin, Texas company reported a profit of $10.1 million, or 30 cents per share, in the fourth quarter of 2010. Its revenue slipped to $92.4 million from $92.6 million a year ago Analysts expected ArthroCare to report a profit of 22 cents per share and $97.5 million in revenue, according to FactSet. Analyst estimates generally exclude one-time items like the proposed settlement costs, which ArthroCare disclosed in November. The company said revenue from its sports medicine business rose 4.2 percent to $62.4 million, but sales of ear, nose, throat and other products declined. In 2011, ArthroCare lost $4.3 million, or 16 cents per share. It posted a profit of $33.8 million, or $1.02 per share, in 2010. Revenue declined to $354.9 million from $355.4 million. In a conference call, the company said it expects revenue growth in the low single digits in 2012. "There remains great uncertainty here in the United States and abroad, particularly in Europe. As a result, we think it is more likely that 2011's market condition of weak underlying procedure growth will continue into 2012," said President and CEO David Fitzgerald. Analysts had forecast revenue of $377.4 million in revenue, which represents growth of 6 percent. ArthroCare stock lost $5.78, or 18.8 percent, to $24.99 in afternoon trading on Feb. 17. Earlier in trading shares set a 52- week low of $23.54. BRETT BROS: Sued Over False Claims on Necklaces & Bracelets ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims that Brett Bros. Sports, run by baseball Hall of Famer George Brett, pushes its necklaces and bracelets with false claims about their health-giving effects. A copy of the Complaint in Carlberg v. Brett Bros. Sports International, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00259 (W.D. Wash.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/Brett.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Jones, Esq. KRUTCH LINDELL BINGHAM JONES, PS One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 1701 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-1505 E-mail: jcj@krutchlindell.com - and - Michael Louis Kelly, Esq. Behram V. Parekh, Esq. Heather M. Peterson, Esq. KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP 2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Fourth Floor El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 356-1000 E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com bvp@kirtlandpackard.com hmp@kirtlandpackard.com CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Journey Brakes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Javier R. Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chrysler Group LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Doe 1 through and including Doe 100, Case No. RG11610317 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., December 30, 2011) involves the alleged defective design and false advertising of the 2009 and 2010 Dodge Journey, which vehicle was Dodge's first attempt at building and selling what is popularly referred to as a cross-over vehicle. The Braking System, however, is inadequate for the size and weight of the Journey, Mr. Garcia contends. He explains that specifically, it has been widely reported that the brake pads and rotors are too small and thin to handle the braking duties required by the size and weight of the Journey. He alleges that Chrysler became aware of this defect from countless owner complaints and dealer records, but despite this knowledge, Dodge has done nothing systematically to remedy the defect or to provide notification to owners or lessees of the Journey. Mr. Garcia is a resident of the state of California. Chrysler is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Auburn Hills, Michigan. The Plaintiff is currently ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. Chrysler removed the lawsuit on February 16, 2011, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company argues that the removal is proper because the state action arises under, arises on, and is related to, the bankruptcy case of In re Old Carco LLC, formerly known as, Chrysler LLC. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv- 00758 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 6424 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90038 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com - and - Darryl A. Stallworth, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYL A. STALLWORTH 2355 Broadway, Suite 303 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 271-1900 Facsimile: (510) 271-1902 E-mail: dstallworth@your-defense.com The Defendants are represented by: Wayne A. Wolff, Esq.. SEDGWICK LLP 333 Bush Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-2806 Telephone: (415) 781-7900 Facsimile: (415) 781-2635 E-mail: wayne.wolff@sedgwicklaw.com - and - Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq. John W. Rogers, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552-7000 E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com CHRYSLER GROUP: Keefe Bartels Law Firm Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The trial lawyers of Keefe Bartels, LLC have, with Poulos LoPiccolo PC and the Law Offices of Peter Lucas LLC, filed a class action complaint against Chrysler Group, LLC (Case 3:12-cv-00760- PGS-DEA). Brought on behalf of plaintiffs Jay Miller and Brooke Willman, the complaint fundamentally alleges that the Chrysler 300 series, and the Jeep Patriot, Liberty, Compass, Commander, Cherokee and Grand Cherokee models for the years 2006 to the present, have defective, leaking sunroofs. These leaks result, plaintiffs believe, from design errors, faulty materials, substandard installation practices, and manufacturing defects. The vehicles' owners and lessees suffer substantial financial losses from repair costs; lost use and enjoyment of their vehicles; lost time in arranging and obtaining repairs; and reduced resale and trade-in values. Among other wrongs, plaintiffs allege, Chrysler violated the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. Seeking an award of damages, costs and attorneys' fees, the plaintiffs' Complaint also asks the Court to order Chrysler to notify class members of the defects and fix the vehicles, at Chrysler's expense. Chrysler and its agents have refused to address and correct the faulty drainage tubes. Chrysler has claimed the leaks result from factors beyond Chrysler's control. Chrysler has refused to honor warranty claims for these sunroofs. But, between 1999 and 2010 Chrysler issued no fewer than 7 Technical Service Bulletins about its vehicles' faulty drainage tubes and leaking sunroofs. Advertised as well-designed and soundly constructed -- and, for the Jeeps, as rugged off-road vehicles capable of handling just about any harsh conditions -- these Chrysler vehicles' sunroofs leak even in routine conditions. Exposure to rain, snow and sleet causes leaking. So does a routine car wash. Merely parking under a dripping tree can mean the driver comes back to a soaked interior. Unsightly water stains, unhealthy mold, and rank smells result. So do damages to electric circuitry and structural components. "Chrysler, an iconic American brand, should live up to its name and heritage, accept its responsibility, fix these problems and compensate those who got less than that for which they paid," said Steve Grygiel and John Keefe of Keefe Bartels. John Poulos and Joe LoPiccolo said "Chrysler's advertisements of brawny, tough well-made vehicles bear little relationship to the soggy experience of many Chrysler customers." Peter Lucas, agreeing, noted: "Chrysler claims its products, especially the Jeeps, can handle all sorts of terrible conditions, churning through muddy swamps, climbing mountains, and crossing rivers. Turns out they cannot even handle a car wash." If you bought or leased one of the Jeep or Chrysler vehicles described above and have sustained water damage to your vehicle from a leaking sunroof, please contact Keefe Bartels at 1-877- ATTY-24-7, or e-mail info@keefebartels.com to discuss your claim. Keefe Bartels, L.L.C. -- http://www.keefebartels.com-- is a law firm based in New Jersey that is dedicated to restoring the lives of those who have suffered from serious or fatal injuries. COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Diversity Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court ruling dismissing the diversity action entitled CAPITOL WEST APPRAISALS LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP, et al., Case No. 10-35984 (9th Cir.) A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Feb. 3, 2012 Memorandum is available at http://is.gd/2wuTvcfrom Leagle.com. DELL INC: 5th Circuit Upholds Securities Class Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court order certifying a class, and approving a class action settlement, in the securities lawsuit captioned UNION ASSET MANAGEMENT HOLDING A.G. v. DELL, INC., Case Nos. 08-51163 and 10- 50688 (5th Cir.). The class settlement provided for a $40 million settlement fund to be allocated among the class members and their attorneys. Two groups -- Stephen G. Schuleman, et al., and Brian F. Murphy Rev. Trust, et al. -- appealed the district court rulings, claiming numerous deficiencies. Upon review, the Fifth Circuit finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering its rulings on the class certification and class settlement. The Fifth Circuit also doesn't find abuse of discretion in the district court's $7.2 million fee award to the class counsel. A copy of the Fifth Circuit's Feb. 7, 2012 Order is available at http://is.gd/ZprKznfrom Leagle.com. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Dismiss Patient Class Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has denied the District of Columbia's motion to dismiss a class action alleging the city was unnecessarily confining people with mental disabilities in nursing facilities to avoid having to pay for them to have home care. In December 2010, five patients suffering from a variety of mental and physical disabilities and receiving Medicaid funding for long- term care sued the city in an attempt to transfer the money used to confine them in institutions to programs where they could be treated at home. "Federal law requires that the District of Columbia provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs," the five patients stated in their class complaint. "But the District has failed to comply with this obligation, leaving between 500 and nearly 3,000 people with disabilities unnecessarily institutionalized in nursing facilities, segregated and isolated from their family and friends." In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle said the city spent more than $494 million in 2010 on all long-term care services, with 44.6 percent of that cash going toward home and community-based services under waiver programs. "The annual average cost of community-based mental health services is less than treatment in a psychiatric hospital," the judge stated. The city filed a motion to dismiss the claims, arguing that the patients failed to state a claim, that the city is entitled to summary judgment because they have a plan in place and because the individual defendants (former Mayor Adrian Fenty and other city officials) are duplicative of the city. Though Judge Huvelle agreed on the city's last notion that the claims against the defendants are duplicative, she concluded "that plaintiffs' allegation that 'health-care professionals' have determined that community-based treatment is appropriate is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss." "To allege the necessary 'causal connection' between the District's actions and plaintiffs' injury, it is sufficient to allege, as plaintiffs do, that the District provides, administers and/or funds the existing service system through which plaintiffs receive long-term care services and/or that the District, in so doing, has utilized criteria or methods of administration that have 'caused [plaintiffs] . . . to be confined unnecessarily in nursing facilities in order to obtain long-term care services, rather than facilitate their transition to the community with appropriate services and supports,'" Judge Huvelle wrote. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Day, et al. v. District of Columbia, Case No. 10-cv-02250 (D.D.C.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/MentalHomeCare.pdf EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in "Findlay" Suit Remains Pending in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a judgment in favor of Expedia, Inc. and other online travel companies in the consolidated lawsuit filed by certain Ohio cities remains pending, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On October 25, 2005, the city of Findlay, Ohio, filed a purported statewide class action in state court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia, City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 2005-CV-673 (Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, Ohio). On August 8, 2006, the city of Columbus, Ohio, and the city of Dayton, Ohio, filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington, City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 2:06-CV-00677 (United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio). The complaints allege that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaints include claims for violation of hotel occupancy tax ordinances, violation of the consumer protection act, conversion, imposition of a constructive trust and declaratory relief. The Findlay lawsuit was removed to federal court and consolidated with the case brought by Columbus and Dayton. On July 26, 2006, the court held that defendants were not subject to the payment of taxes under the hotel occupancy tax ordinances and granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The cities of Toledo, Northwood, Rossford, Maumee, the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority and the Perrysburg Township and Springfield Township have been added as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Class certification was never granted. On November 18, 2010, the court ruled on the remaining claim and held that defendants have not collected taxes that have not been remitted and entered judgment in favor of the online travel companies. Plaintiffs have appealed. The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Decision in Gallup, New Mexico Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other defendants' motion for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit commenced by the city of Gallup, New Mexico, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico, filed a putative statewide class action in state court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia, City of Gallup, New Mexico, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CIV-06- 0549 JC/RLP (United States District Court, District of New Mexico). The case was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006. The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances. The complaint asserts claims for violation of those ordinances, conversion, and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement. On April 18, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss its own lawsuit. On July 6, 2007, the city of Gallup refiled its lawsuit. Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint on January 16, 2009. The court certified the class on July 7, 2009. On March 1, 2010, the court denied the city's motion for summary judgment and held that the online travel companies do not have tax obligations under the city's ordinance and that defendants have not collected taxes that have not been remitted. On February 18, 2011, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Decision in Suit by City of Rome, Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its and other defendants' motion for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit commenced by the city of Rome, Georgia, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On November 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County, Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia filed a purported statewide class action in federal court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia, City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 4:05-CV-249 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the county and cities the hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances. The complaint asserts claims for violation of excise and sales and use tax ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, declaratory relief and injunctive relief. The complaint seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified amount. On May 9, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding sixteen more municipalities and political subdivisions as named plaintiffs. On May 10, 2007, the court stayed the litigation, concluding that the plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies before continuing to litigate their tax claims. On July 10, 2009, the court lifted the stay of the litigation. The court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On September 23, 2011, defendants filed a motion to deposit funds into the court for the payment of future hotel occupancy taxes. Defendant online travel companies have filed a motion for summary judgment. The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. EXPEDIA INC: Certification Hearing in "Magill" Suit in May 2012 --------------------------------------------------------------- A class certification hearing is scheduled for May 23 to 25, 2012, in the class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of Expedia, Inc. in Canada, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On June 26, 2009, a class action lawsuit against Expedia Canada Corporation was filed in Ontario, Canada, alleging that disclosures related to "taxes and service fees" were deceptive. See Magill v. Expedia Canada Corporation and Expedia.ca, CV-09- 381919-00LP (Ontario Superior Court of Justice). The complaint asserts claims under the Competition Act and Consumer Protection Act as well as claims of unjust enrichment, restitution, constructive trust, accounting and disgorgement and breach of contract. It seeks damages in the amount of CA$50 million for the class as well as interest, fees and alternate damages measures. On September 24, 2010, the court added Expedia, Inc. as a defendant and dismissed many of the plaintiff's claims with leave to amend. The class period was also limited. The plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on January 7, 2011. A class certification hearing is scheduled for May 23-25, 2012. The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. EXPEDIA INC: "Chiste" Consumer Suit Still Pending in N.Y. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A consumer class action lawsuit commenced by Matthew R. Chiste against Expedia, Inc. remains pending in New York, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On December 8, 2008, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New York State against Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. Similar lawsuits were filed at or about the same time against Priceline and Travelocity. See Matthew R. Chiste, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 08 CV 10676 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). The complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive practices in charging customers for taxes and fees. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all persons who booked a hotel room in New York City through the defendants. The complaint asserts claims for deceptive business practices, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount, but exceeding $5 million. On November 15, 2010, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and the bulk of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed. Expedia filed a Motion for Reconsideration seeking to have the remainder of the case dismissed, which was denied. The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Nassau County, New York Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit commenced by Nassau County, New York, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York, filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia, Nassau County, New York, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances to certain New York cities, counties and local governments in New York. The complaint asserts claims for violations of those ordinances, as well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and imposition of a constructive trust, and seeks unspecified damages. On August 17, 2007, the court granted defendants' motion dismissing the lawsuit due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. On August 11, 2009, the Second Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine whether class certification is appropriate. The district court has ordered the parties to proceed with class certification. The county subsequently dismissed its case on May 13, 2011, for lack of jurisdiction and refiled in state court, captioned County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al., (In the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau). The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. EXPEDIA INC: Bluff/Jefferson Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit commenced by Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission and the County of Jefferson, Arkansas, against Expedia, Inc., is still pending, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com, and Hotwire, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas, and others similarly situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al. CV-2009-946-5 (In the Circuit Court of Jefferson, Arkansas). The complaint alleges that defendants have failed to collect and/or pay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification. On January 12, 2012, the court entered an order staying the case for thirty days while it considers again whether the plaintiff should be required to exhaust administrative remedies. The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. EXPEDIA INC: San Antonio, Texas Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit commenced by the city of San Antonio, Texas, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia. See City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., SA06CA0381 (United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint asserts claims for violation of that ordinance, common-law conversion, and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement. On October 30, 2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that defendant online travel companies "control hotels," and awarding approximately $15 million for historical damages against the Expedia companies. The jury also found that defendants were not liable for conversion or punitive damages. The final amount of the judgment against the Expedia companies has not been determined. On July 1, 2011, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law holding defendant online travel companies liable for hotel occupancy taxes. The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. EXPEDIA INC: Defends Consolidated Suit by California Cities ----------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit commenced by the city of Los Angeles and other cities of California, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported class action in California state court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire, captioned City of Los Angeles, California, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. BC326693 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County). The complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes. The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class of all California cities and counties that have enacted uniform transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on or after December 30, 1990. The complaint alleges violation of those ordinances, violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and common-law conversion. The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are subject to hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to consumers and imposition of a constructive trust on all monies owed by the defendants to the government, as well as disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties. On July 26, 2007, the court signed an order staying the lawsuit until the cities have exhausted their administrative remedies. The case is coordinated with the cases in San Diego, Anaheim, Santa Monica and San Francisco. On September 9, 2009, the City of Los Angeles issued assessments totaling $29.5 million against Expedia companies (Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire). An administrative hearing challenging the assessments was held on December 3, 2009. On September 16, 2010, the assessment review officer approved the assessments. A second level administrative review hearing was held in December 2010. On August 16, 2011, the Board of Review entered a decision holding Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire liable for hotel occupancy taxes. The city of Los Angeles' claims will now be heard by the trial court in the consolidated action involving claims brought by other cities in California, including Anaheim, Santa Monica, San Diego and San Francisco. The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings relating to hotel occupancy taxes lack merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. EXPEDIA INC: Dismissal of "Lyndhurst" Suit Affirmed in August ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed in August 2011 the dismissal of claims in the class action lawsuit commenced by the Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, according to Expedia, Inc.'s February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On June 18, 2008, the township of Lyndhurst filed a putative class action in federal court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, and Hotwire, Township of Lyndhurst v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 2:08-CV-03033-JLL-CCC (United States District Court for District of New Jersey). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the township hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint asserts claims for violation of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On March 18, 2009, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Plaintiff appealed. On August 2, 2011, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims. EXPEDIA INC: Seattle, Wash. Suit Entirely Settled as of Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2011, Expedia, Inc.'s obligations with respect to a class action lawsuit filed in Seattle, Washington, were settled in their entirety, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in Seattle, Washington, alleging that certain practices related to its service fees breached its Terms of Use and violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act from 2001 through 2008. In May 2009, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, without the benefit of an actual trial on the merits, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Consumer Protection Act claim. The Company entered into a Settlement Agreement, initially estimated at a cost of $19 million, providing for the settlement of all claims alleged in the lawsuit, which was approved by the court on December 1, 2009. The court's order approving the Settlement Agreement was appealed by third parties but dismissed by the court on April 14, 2010. The Company denied and continues to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in the lawsuit, including claims that the plaintiffs have suffered any harm or damages. The Company does not admit liability or the truth of any of the allegations in the lawsuit and settled the case to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. The terms of the Settlement Agreement provided the class members the option to elect settlement in cash. For those not electing cash, amounts were settled in coupons. As of December 31, 2010, the majority of the estimated settlement accrual was settled with either cash payments or coupon redemptions. The remaining settlement liability included an estimated coupon redemption rate, which was increased during 2011 and 2010 by approximately $2 million and $3 million, and as of December 31, 2011, was settled in its entirety. EXPEDIA INC: Trial in "Goodlettsville" Suit Set for March 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ Trial is scheduled for March 13, 2012, in the class action lawsuit originally commenced by the cities of Goodlettsville and Brentwood, Tennessee, according to Expedia, Inc.'s February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On June 2, 2008, the cities of Goodlettsville and Brentwood, Tennessee, filed a putative class action in federal court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, and Hotwire, City of Goodlettsville and City of Brentwood v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 3-08-0561 (United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the cities hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint asserts claims for violation of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and conversion, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the City of Brentwood. Class certification has been granted. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Trial is scheduled for March 13, 2012. FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Plaintiff Files Motion to Withdraw ------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that Seattle seamstress Angel Fraley sued Facebook Inc. for allegedly violating her privacy. She doesn't want the company to do it again. Attorneys for Facebook at Cooley said in court papers filed on Feb. 16 that they have been trying unsuccessfully since last September to depose Ms. Fraley, a named plaintiff in a purported class action first filed in California state court and moved to the Northern District in March 2011. Ms. Fraley claims the site used her image and name to advertise products to her Facebook friends without her permission. Ms. Fraley is so worried about what Facebook's lawyer will ask during a deposition that her lawyers have filed a motion asking to withdraw her and fellow plaintiff Paul Wang as class representatives. "I did not expect that every single post I had ever made on Facebook would be potentially rehashed in an interrogatory responses [sic] and deposition," Ms. Fraley said in court documents filed on Feb. 13. "Answering questions regarding my private posts or my decisions to click 'Like' buttons on certain pages or posts would subject me to embarrassment and invade my privacy." A hearing on that motion is scheduled for May 31. Facebook's attorneys at Cooley said on Feb. 16 that until the motion is heard, Ms. Fraley is subject to discovery. And even if the court does dismiss her as a representative, "such a dismissal can and should be conditioned on her completed deposition." Her testimony will be critical in deciding whether the plaintiff's upcoming motion to certify a class should be denied. Facebook's lawyers said they want to ask Ms. Fraley about the pseudonym she used on the site, "Angel Frolicker," as well as her use of the "Like" button and what information she voluntarily shared with friends. "While Facebook casts no judgment on the veracity of Ms. Fraley's privacy concerns, it was Ms. Fraley's decision to bring this suit and thus voluntarily put both her activity on Facebook and the reasoning behind it at issue," wrote Cooley partner Matthew Brown. Cooley litigation chair Michael Rhodes, who is lead counsel, declined to comment. Ms. Fraley is represented by partners Robert Arns and Jonathan Davis, along with of counsel Steven Weinmann, from The Arns Law Firm in San Francisco, and Jonathan Jaffe at Jonathan Jaffe Law in Berkeley. They did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Plaintiff's lawyers can be reached at: Robert S. Arns, Esq. Jonathan Davis, Esq. Steven Weinmann, Esq. ARNS LAW FIRM 515 Folsom, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com srw@arnslaw.com jed@arnslaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Silverado Truck Electric Seat Warmers --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims electric seat warmers in General Motors Silverado trucks reach "dangerously high temperatures sufficient to bum human skin and tissue." A copy of the Complaint in Hedlind, et ux. v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-00277 (D. Or.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/GMCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur C. Johnson, Esq. Douglas G. Schaller, Esq. JOHNSON, JOHNSON, LARSON & SCHALLER, P.C. 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050 Eugene, OR 97401-3176 E-mail: ajohnson@jjlslaw.com dschaller@jjlslaw.com HAPPINESS IS PETS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Puppy Mills -------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that six puppy owners claim in a class action that the Happiness Is Pets chain store misrepresents that its puppies come from small-scale breeders, though they actually come from "some of the most despicable and horrendous puppy mills in the Midwest." Lead plaintiff Jane Clifford seeks punitive damages from 18 Happiness Is Pets branches in the Chicagoland area, and their owner Ronald Berning. "Plaintiffs purchased sick puppies sold by Happiness which falsely represented that its puppies were healthy and came from private and reputable breeders. In fact, the puppies at Happiness are often sick and come from some of the most despicable and horrendous puppy mills in the Midwest," the complaint states. It adds: "On information and belief, many puppies, no more than 8 weeks old, arrive at Happiness in crowded vans, packed in crates covered with feces and urine, shaking and visibly stressed, many sick. Happiness employees are directed to bathe and groom the puppies and administer antibiotics and deworming treatments daily, in an effort to mask the unhealthy condition of the puppies to unsuspecting consumers and of which dangerously jeopardizes the puppy's immune system." The plaintiffs' attorney Edward Clinton Jr. said in an interview with Courthouse News: "We received so many calls from so many people who had problems with Happiness pets that we thought it incumbent on us to file a lawsuit." The plaintiffs claim that "the breeders used by Happiness fit perfectly within the definition of 'puppy mill' as defined by Happiness. Many of Happiness' breeders are cited by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for violations including but not limited to failure to provide veterinary care, lack of exercise, and improper housing enclosures. For example, the USDA reported that 'Breeder A,' a main breeder used by Happiness, failed to provide veterinary care to a blind dog with crusty eye discharge and to another dog with no teeth." The class claims that "the USDA reported an inventory count of another breeder used by Happiness, 'Breeder B,' of 890 dogs and 315 puppies. . . . "'Breeder B' is not a private, small-scale breeder as Happiness falsely represents, and it is a mass producing dog facility. "An investigation by the Companion Animal Protection Society (CAPS), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting companion animals, further revealed a burn pile of puppies at 'Breeder B,'" according to the complaint. The plaintiffs say: "These deceptions are perpetrated so as to prevent plaintiffs from realizing the obvious -- that purchasing a puppy from Happiness is a terrible idea and is financially and emotionally burdensome." Plaintiff Bryan Phillips says he bought his puppy, Dakota, from Happiness in December 2011 for about $809. "Shortly after Phillips' purchase, Dakota tested positive for distemper," the complaint states. "Dakota showed signs of illness immediately. He took Dakota to Happiness' recommended vet who dismissed her symptoms as a common cold and gave her a drug. Dakota's symptoms quickly worsened and Phillips took Dakota to his family vet, who noticed the signs of distemper instantly. A further X-ray showed Dakota had pneumonia as well. Dakota suffered from tremors, seizures, vomiting, severe diarrhea, coughing, eye and nose discharge, sneezing, respiratory problems, conjunctivitis and corneal ulcers." Plaintiffs Lissett Dzieglo and Mark Jillich say they bought their puppy, Gunner, from Happiness in January this year, for $976. "Gunner showed signs of illness immediately, including a severe cough, difficulty breathing and congestion," the complaint states. "Gunner was taken to the vet approximately five times in a matter of weeks. The coughing quickly worsened and elevated to bronchitis, eye and nose discharge, increased breath, clumsiness, lack of energy, and yelping in pain." The other plaintiffs say their puppies suffered similar health problems. "Our first goal is to get a class certified," Mr. Clinton said. The plaintiffs seek punitive damages for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of implied warranty, and want Happiness enjoined from continuing its allegedly deceptive practices. They also seek refunds of the price of the puppies, including all items associated with the purchases, and veterinary expenses. A copy of the Complaint in Clifford, et al. v. Happiness is Pets of Arlington Heights, Inc., et al., Case No. 12CH05089 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/Puppies.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward X. Clinton, Jr., Esq. Stephanie A. Capps, Esq. THE CLINTON LAW FIRM 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1437 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 357-1515 E-mail: eclinton@aol.com HOOTERS: Judge Allows Servers' Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Paul T. Rosynsky, writing for Oakland Tribune, reports that Hooters servers who claim they were unlawfully cheated out of tip money, forced to purchase their own uniforms and, among other violations, not given proper lunch breaks can continue a class- action lawsuit against a Bay Area restaurant franchise, an appeal court ruled last week. The class-action covers Hooters employees who worked at Hooter restaurants in Fremont, Campbell, and Dublin and the now-closed Hooters in San Francisco. Judges in the state's 1st Appellate District ruled on Feb. 14 that local Hooters franchise Hot Wings Inc. did not demand, in a timely manner, that the case move to arbitration, a legal move that would have limited future litigation and made all proceedings private. Hot Wings Inc. asked for arbitration based on standard employment agreements it makes each worker sign upon being hired by the company. While the court ruled that the agreements were valid, it said attorneys for Hot Wings waited too long to demand the case be settled through arbitration. As a result, the 19 named plaintiffs in the case and any other Hooters worker who is covered by the class-action lawsuit can continue to sue Hot Wings in Alameda County Superior Court. The class-action claims that the local Hooters franchise illegally forced servers to enter a tip pool, failed to provide rest and meal breaks, failed to provide uniforms, failed to pay minimum wage and, among other violations, failed to pay proper compensation when an employee was terminated. K12 INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, filed the first, and only, class action lawsuit against K12, Inc. for securities fraud on January 30, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Faruqi & Faruqi reminds current and former shareholders of K12 that they have until April 2, 2012 to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case. The Complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in K12 common stock during the period between September 9, 2009 and December 16, 2011, inclusive. The class action lawsuit filed by the firm focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (1) according to various academic benchmarks, K12 students were chronically underperforming their peers at traditional schools; (2) K12 has aggressively recruited students to their schools, regardless of how well-suited they might be to the Company's curriculum; (3) as a result of K12's haphazard recruiting process, the Company experiences student retention problems and K12 students are characterized by high rates of withdrawal (or "churn rates"); (4) K12 schools often have far larger student-to-teacher ratios than the Company advertises; and (5) K12 teachers have been pressured to allow students to pass regardless of poor academic performance, in order for the Company to receive federal funds. If you purchased K12 securities between September 9, 2009 and December 16, 2011 and wish to join this litigation as a plaintiff, please contact our office as soon as possible. We encourage investors who would like to discuss their legal rights to visit http://www.faruqilaw.com/LRNXor contact us by calling Richard Gonnello or Francis McConville toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com or fmcconville@faruqilaw.com Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a national securities law firm, also encourages anyone with information regarding K12's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Our firm seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. Request more information now by clicking here: http://www.faruqilaw.com/LRNX KINROSS GOLD: To Fight Potential Class Actions ---------------------------------------------- Matthew Hill, writing for miningweekly.com, reports that Kinross Gold, which reported a C$2.9-billion write-down on Feb. 15, said it will "vigorously" fight class action suits US law firms said they were investigating on Feb. 10. The claims related to the impairment hit Kinross took at its Tasiast mine in Mauritania mine, with Harwood Feffer LLP alleging the company made "materially false and misleading statements". Spokesperson for the Toronto-based gold producer, Canada's third- largest, Steve Mitchell said in an interview such class actions were not uncommon after a company's share price showed volatility such as Kinross' had. The stock plunged 21% on Jan. 17 after the Toronto-listed firm said it would write down a significant amount of the goodwill at Tasiast, which it bought for around C$7-billion in 2010 through its Redback acquisition. "We believe the claims are without merit and we will vigorously defend against them," Mr. Mitchell said. Reuters earlier reported at least four US law firms were investigating legal claims against Kinross and some of its officers for possible violation of fiduciary duties. LOCUSTWOOD MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Urns -------------------------------------------------------- Joe Cooney, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a proposed class action suit has been filed against the owner of Locustwood Memorial Park alleging the cemetery is liable to replace hundreds of graveside urns that were stolen by an employee. The suit was filed on behalf of Patricia Lyford of Voorhees and Barbara Myers of Pine Hill. Both have family members buried at Locustwood. The women -- and dozens of other people with relatives interred at the Route 70 cemetery -- had noticed the urns missing from headstones last December. By early January, Cherry Hill police had received more than 50 reports of stolen vases. "We have sent a request to the Cherry Hill police department to get copies of the complaints they received," said attorney Stephen DeNittis of the Marlton law firm of Shabel & DeNittis. "At some point we will file a motion with the court to classify this as a class action. Usually we need more than 40 people who are in a similar situation." The suit seeks either the replacement of the bronze urns, or their cash value. The urns are valued at approximately $250 each, according to attorney Joe Osefchen, who is representing the women along with Mr. DeNittis. "There is a New Jersey statute that requires all nonreligious cemeteries to have a maintenance and preservation fund," Mr. Osefchen said. "We don't know if that covers missing urns, but we have made a claim against that." Ms. Myers hopes everyone that has been hurt by this can have find some kind of closure. "We want the vases to be replaced so the graves can look pretty again," she said. Ms. Lyford could not be reached for comment on Feb. 16. The complaint, filed on Feb. 15 in Camden County Superior Court, cites Osiris Management, Inc., as the owner of Locustwood. Osiris is based in the Iselin section of Woodbridge in Middlesex County. Mr. DeNittis said the Locustwood office was served with the complaint on Feb. 15. A process server delivered the complaint to Osiris on Feb. 16. A worker at the Locustwood office would not comment early Thursday. On her computer screen was an Excel spreadsheet titled "Families With Missing Vases." Site Manager Dennis Cangiarella did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. DeNittis can be reached at: Stephen DeNittis, Esq. SHABEL & DENITTIS 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 302 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 E-mail: sdenittis@shabeldenittis.com Web site: http://www.shabeldenittis.com MAGMA DESIGN: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magma Design Automation, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to resolve merger-related class action lawsuits pending in California, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On November 30, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Synopsys Inc. and Lotus Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Synopsys ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Synopsys (the "Merger"). The Merger is expected to close in the first half of calendar year 2012. Between December 5, 2011, and December 19, 2011, Magma, the members of its board of directors, Synopsys and, in certain instances, Merger Sub were named as defendants in three purported stockholder class action lawsuits that were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, which the Company refers to as the California actions, and one additional lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the Delaware action. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to its stockholders in negotiating and entering into the merger agreement and by agreeing to sell Magma at an unfair price, pursuant to an unfair process and pursuant to unreasonable terms, and that Magma, Synopsys and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 20, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action requested a temporary stay of the Delaware action, which the court granted, and began coordinating with the plaintiffs in the California actions. On February 10, 2012, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a proposed settlement of the California actions and the Delaware action, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of the defendants. The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court presiding over the California actions. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the memorandum of understanding, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that the Company's stockholders are entitled to receive in the merger. The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the lawsuits and specifically deny that any supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. However, to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuits, to avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the merger and the related transactions, and to provide additional information to the Company's stockholders at a time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the special meeting or the merger, the Company has determined to provide the supplemental disclosures, as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding and proposed settlement. METABOLIX INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Metabolix, Inc. from March 10, 2010 through January 12, 2012, inclusive. The action alleges that Metabolix and certain of its executive officers committed violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Metabolix is a bioscience company focused on bringing environmentally friendly solutions to the plastics, chemicals and energy industries. The Company has core capabilities in microbial genetics, fermentation process engineering, chemical engineering, polymer science, plant genetics and botanical science. The Company's largest platform, which it commercialized through Telles, its joint venture with Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, is a large-scale microbial fermentation system for producing a versatile family of polymers known as PHA's which it had branded under the name Mirel. Through Telles, Metabolix was promoting these bioplastics as biobased and biodegradable, but functionally equivalent, alternatives to petroleum-based plastics. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Metabolix, and certain controlling individuals of the Company, made fraudulent material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Metabolix's business and operations. Among other things, the complaint alleges that defendants materially misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Telles joint venture would not meet its commercial phase benchmark as early as mid-2010, or even in 2011, which would allow the Metabolix to receive royalty payments and payments from services from Telles; (ii) that Mirel was not a commercially viable product that would offer value to Metabolix and its shareholders; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects. On January 12, 2012, Metabolix issued a press release announcing that ADM had given notice of termination of the Telles joint venture. ADM disclosed it terminated the Telles joint venture because uncertainty about projected capital and production costs, combined with the rate of market adoption, led to projected financial returns for ADM that were too uncertain. On the same day, ADM further disclosed that the Telles joint venture was not delivering sufficient results now and was not expected to deliver sufficient results in a reasonable timeframe. Upon this news, Metabolix shares declined approximately 57%, to reach a multi-year low of $2.54. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Metabolix common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Gardy & Notis, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. If you purchased or acquired Metabolix securities from March 10, 2010 through January 12, 2012, and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from February 17, 2012 (no later than April 17, 2012). 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 a member of the proposed class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice, please contact: GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Mark C. Gardy, Esq. Meagan Farmer, Esq. 501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, New York 10017 Telephone: 212-905-0509 E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com mfarmer@gardylaw.com Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 7th Cir. Vacates Certification Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was asked in consolidated appeals to review multiple procedural and substantive orders in a long-running class action lawsuit captioned "JAMIE S., on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons v. MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Case Nos. 09-2741, 09-3274 (7th Cir.)," seeking structural reform of special education in the Milwaukee public school district. The class action was brought by seven students with disabilities against Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), alleging widespread violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district court rejected the plaintiffs' proposed class but certified a somewhat more modest one: students eligible to receive special education from MPS who are, have been or will be denied or delayed entry into or participation in the Individualized Education Programs progress. DPI then settled with the class by agreeing to order MPS to meet certain compliance benchmarks; the district court approved the settlement over MPS's objection. In June 2009, the district court ordered a complex remedial scheme requiring MPS to set up a system to identify disabled children who were delayed or denied entry into the IEP process. Upon review, the Seventh Circuit: -- dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of their original class-certification motion for lack of appellate jurisdiction; -- denied the motion to dismiss MPS's appeal of the remedial order; and -- vacated the district court's class certification order, its liability order following Phase II of the trial, its order approving DPI's settlement, and its remedial order following Phase III of the trial. The Seventh Circuit remands the case for further proceedings consistent with its Feb. 3, 2012 Opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/vwmQsKfrom Leagle.com. NATIONAL DATA: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims National Data Research dba Integrascan fails to update its information on criminal records that have been expunged or sealed, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. A copy of the Complaint in Wanamaker v. National Data Research, Inc. dba Integrascan, Case No. 12-cv-06077 (W.D.N.Y.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/CrimRecs.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward P. Hourihan, Jr., Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 350 Linden Oaks, Suite 310 Rochester, NY 14625-2825 Telephone: (585) 362-4712 E-mail: ehourihan@bsk.com - and - Matthew A. Dooley, Esq. Dennis M. O'Toole, Esq. Anthony R. Pecora, Esq. STUMPHAUZER, O'TOOLE, MCLAUGHLIN, MCGLAMERY & LOUGHMAN CO., LPA 5455 Detroit Road Sheffield Village, OH 44054 Telephone: (440) 930-4001 E-mail: mdooley@sheffieldlaw.com dotoole@sheffieldlaw.com apecora@sheffieldlaw.com NESTLE HOLDINGS: 8th Cir. Remands Ralston Suit to Mo. State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a district court order remanding the putative class action captioned John M. Rowling v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., Case No. 11-3445 (8th Cir.) to the jurisdiction of the state courts of Missouri. In March 2001, Mr. Rowling filed the class action on behalf of himself and all other Ralston book-entry shareholders alleging that the class is entitled to interest on Nestle's delinquent payments relating to a merger agreement between Nestle Holdings and Ralston Purina Company. Nestle paid Ralston shareholders a total of $8.880 million for their 265,098,799 outstanding common shares in Ralston. Nestle removed the case to a federal court on May 17, 2011. Mr. Rowling then moved to remand the case to Missouri state court, arguing that the amount in controversy was not in excess of $5 million as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Eighth Circuit held that Mr. Rowling has shown that it is legally impossible for the amount in controversy in the case to meet Class Action Fairness Act of 2005's threshold, and remand based on CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement was appropriate. A copy of the Eighth Circuit's Feb. 2, 2012, Order is available at http://is.gd/BSYVpefrom Leagle.com. NETFLIX INC: Appeal From Judgment in Antitrust Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Netflix, Inc., in connection with a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit remains pending, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-trust class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various United States Federal Courts. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC (collectively, Wal-Mart) were also named as defendants in these lawsuits. These cases have been consolidated in the Northern District of California and have been assigned the multidistrict litigation number MDL-2029. A number of substantially similar lawsuits were filed in California State Courts, and have been consolidated in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers, generally alleged that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix subscription prices. A number of other cases had been filed in Federal and State courts by current or former subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by Blockbuster Inc., alleging injury arising from similar facts. These cases have been related to MDL 2029 or, in the case of the California State cases, coordinated with the cases in Santa Clara County. The complaint(s) sought unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and fees and other equitable relief. On November 22, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment. On December 22, 2011, plaintiff appealed the summary judgment ruling. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible; however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. NETFLIX INC: Faces Two Shareholder Class Suits in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Netflix, Inc. is facing two purported shareholder class action lawsuits in California, according to the Company's February 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On January 27, 2012, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices and its contracts with content providers, which lead to artificially inflated stock prices. The complaint alleges violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. A second lawsuit was filed on January 27, 2012, alleging virtually identical claims. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. NETVISION: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Phone Cards ------------------------------------------------------ Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Feb. 19 disclosed that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Netvision, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and certain other long distance Israeli operators, in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, by a plaintiff alleging that the defendants misled the purchasers of prepaid cards for international calls in relation to certain bonus minutes. The total amount claimed from Netvision (and from each of the other defendants), if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, is estimated by the plaintiff to be at least NIS2.7 billion. At this preliminary stage, Netvision is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. For additional details regarding a similar purported class action, filed against the defendants in 2008, approved to be tried as a class action in November 2010 in relation to certain prepaid cards and appealed by the defendants see the Company's current report on the Company's results of operations in the third quarter of 2011 on Form 6-K, filed on November 15, 2011, under the financial statements as at September 30, 2011- Note 8(4). About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli cellular provider. Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.391 million subscribers (as at September 30, 2011) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The Company operates an HSPA 3.5 Generation network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE and TDMA networks. As of 2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone communication services in Israel, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Remaining Appeal in IPO Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The last of the appeals from the settlement of a consolidated securities litigation over initial public offerings was dismissed with prejudice, according to Oplink Communications, Inc.'s February 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 1, 2012. In November 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that the Company's registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters. Similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies that went public in the late 1990s and early 2000s and their IPO underwriters (collectively, the "IPO Lawsuits"). During the summer of 2008, the parties engaged in a formal mediation process to discuss a global resolution of the IPO Lawsuits. Ultimately, the parties reached an agreement to settle all 309 cases against all defendants, and entered into a settlement agreement in April 2009. The settlement provides for a $586 million recovery in total, divided among the 309 cases. The Company's share of the settlement is roughly $327,458, which is the amount the Company will be required to pay if the settlement is finally approved. In October 2009, the Court certified the settlement class in each case and granted final approval to the settlement. A number of appeals have been filed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the fairness of the settlement. A number of shareholder plaintiffs have also filed petitions for leave to appeal the class certification portion of Judge Scheindlin's ruling. On January 12, 2012, the last of these appeals was dismissed with prejudice. Incorporated in 1995, Oplink Communications -- http://www.oplink.com/-- is a provider of design, integration and optical manufacturing solutions (OMS) for optical networking components, modules and subsystems. Oplink offers advanced and cost-effective optical-electrical components and subsystem manufacturing through its facilities in Zhuhai and Shanghai, China. In addition, Oplink maintains optical-centric front-end design, application, and customer service functions at its offices in Fremont and Woodland Hills, California and has research facilities in Zhuhai and Wuhan, China and Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park in Taiwan. POM WONDERFUL: Sued Over False Claims on Pomegranate Juice ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that POM Wonderful, which aggressively defends its trademarks, is accused of pushing its pomegranate juice with false claims about its health-giving effects, in a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in Templeton Jr. v. POM Wonderful, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-00053 (S.D. Ga.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/POM.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Tate, Esq. C. Dorian Britt, Esq. TATE LAW GROUP, LLC 2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 9060 Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 234-3030 E-mail: marktate@tatelawgroup.com dbritt@tatelawgroup.com POWER BUYING: Sued for Retaining Funds Owned by Store Owners ------------------------------------------------------------ Hiway 87 Stop, Inc., Borgfield Investment, Inc., West Ave Express, Inc., Garden Investment, Inc., on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated corporations v. Power Buying Dealers, USA, Inc., and Samer Odeh, Individually, Case No. 2012-CH-05452 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 16, 2012) disclosed that Defendant PBD implemented a National Tobacco Program system that essentially pooled hundreds of independent convenience store owners, thus, allowing PBD to negotiate with the tobacco companies to open the program to "member stores" that would otherwise be ineligible to participate in the program. To become a member store, each independent convenience store was required to pay a membership fee and sign a three-year contract with PBD, entitled the "Vision 21(TM) Master Agreement." From the third quarter of 2008 through the second quarter of 2009, the Plaintiffs say they purchased and sold packs of cigarettes that entitled them to receive money from the tobacco manufacturers in the form of buy-down rebates and marketing funds. Pursuant to the PBD Agreement, PBD, as their agent, owed the Plaintiffs duties to collect, administer, and remit these rebate and funding payments. However, PDB has failed to do so, and has wrongfully retained the funds, the Plaintiffs allege. As a result, the Plaintiffs assert they have been unable to recoup the losses sustained from selling the cigarettes at below-retail prices. The Plaintiffs are Texas corporations. The Plaintiffs and proposed class are members of one of three merchant associations: South Texas Merchants Association, Tri-State Trade Association, and Alabama Merchants Association. The individual members of the Class are independent owner/operators of convenience stores, which are typically co-located with gas stations. PBD is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Downers Grove, Illinois. PBD's registered agent for service of process is Defendant Samer Odeh. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karl W. Roth, Esq. William P. Foley, Esq. ROTH LAW GROUP, LLC 35 E. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 419-9599 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Defective TVs ---------------------------------------------------------- Yonhap News reports that U.S. consumers have filed class action suits against Samsung Electronics Co. as some of its TV models sold in the U.S. are found to have problems with power failures, the South Korean firm said on Feb. 16. U.S. consumers have been complaining about some types of Samsung's flat-screen TVs sold between 2006 and 2008 as they found problems with a power storage device called a capacitor, making it difficult for the TVs to power up. U.S. consumers have lodged class action lawsuits against the world's largest TV maker in New Jersey, California and Oklahoma, it added. Under a preliminary court settlement in the state of Oklahoma, Samsung said it will continue to provide free repairs that have already been offered to affected consumers, according to the Web site of CBS Miami. The report said more than 7 million Samsung TVs have been plagued by the defective power problems, but Samsung said the number of affected consumers is far smaller than the figures while declining to comment on specific numbers. Regarding the issue, Samsung said since early 2010, the company has voluntarily offered free repairs for U.S. consumers with affected TVs. "There are no problems with recently released TV models," a Samsung spokesman said. "No failure has been reported on TV sets in the domestic market as they are different from TV models sold in the U.S." The Korean firm said it aims to sell around 50 million units of flat-screen TVs this year, 50 percent of which it hopes will be smart TVs. STATE OF IOWA: Decision Expected in Hiring Bias Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that in a case closely watched by civil rights activists, an Iowa judge will soon decide whether to grant thousands of black employees and job applicants monetary damages for hiring practices used by Iowa state government that they say have disadvantaged them. Experts say the case is the largest class-action lawsuit of its kind against an entire state government's civil service system, and tests a legal theory that social science and statistics alone can prove widespread discrimination. The plaintiffs -- up to 6,000 African-Americans passed over for state jobs and promotions dating back to 2003 -- do not say they faced overt racism or discriminatory hiring tests in Iowa, a state that is 91 percent white. Instead, their lawyers argue that managers subconsciously favored whites across state government, leaving blacks at a disadvantage in decisions over who got interviewed, hired and promoted. Judge Robert Blink's decision, expected in coming weeks, could award damages and mandate changes in state personnel policies or dismiss a case that represents a growing front of discrimination litigation. "Whenever there is a case like this that goes to trial, it's of interest to all of us," said Jocelyn Larkin, executive director of the Impact Fund, a Berkeley, Calif.-based nonprofit that supports employment discrimination lawsuits and has followed the case. Similar cases against local governments have failed because proving broad bias is extraordinarily difficult, with a myriad of possible factors to explain disparities, said David Friedland, a California human resources consultant who is an expert on discrimination in hiring. Success in Iowa could encourage similar lawsuits elsewhere, he said. University of Washington psychology professor Anthony Greenwald, an expert on implicit bias who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, said the decision will be important nationally because similar cases against corporations have usually been dismissed or settled before trial. Scholars and employment lawyers have shown a growing interest in implicit bias in the last several years, after Mr. Greenwald and other scientists developed the Implicit Association Test to test racial stereotypes. Their research found an inherent preference for whites over blacks -- in up to 80 percent of test-takers and among many people who do not consider themselves racist. The theory hit a legal obstacle last year when the U.S. Supreme Court disqualified a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart's pay and promotion practices for women. The court found the class was too broad and failed to challenge a specific hiring practice as discriminatory. Lawyers defending the state have cited that decision in asking Judge Blink to dismiss the case. But the high court's decision did not specifically reject the theory of implicit bias, and dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that such claims can be allowed. Class attorney Thomas Newkirk said the science and other evidence that shows disadvantaged groups such as blacks face employment discrimination in subtle ways "is becoming overwhelming." U.S. BANK: Trial Mgmt. Plan in Wage Suit Flawed, Says App. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- Following a bifurcated bench trial in the wage and hour class action styled as SAM DURAN, et al. v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case Nos. A125557, A126827 (Calif. App. Ct.), the defendant appealed the resulting $15 million judgment in the lawsuit brought under Business and Professions Code (section 17200). The plaintiffs in the class action are 260 current and former business banking officers who claimed they were misclassified by U.S. Bank as outside sales personnel exempt from California's overtime laws, and were, thus, unlawfully denied overtime pay. In addition to arguing the case should not have been certified as a class action, U.S. Bank contended that the trial court's trial management plan deprived it of its constitutional due process rights in that the plan prevented it from defending against the individual claims for over 90% of the class. The Court of Appeals of California, First District, agrees that the trial management plan was fatally flawed and reverses the judgment. The Court of Appeals also concludes the case must be decertified, and reverses an order awarding certain expert witness fees to plaintiffs. Moreover, the Court of Appeals remands the two named plaintiffs' meal and rest break period violation claims for reconsideration in light of the California Supreme Court's ruling in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 25, review granted October 22, 2008 (S166350). Timothy M. Freudenberger, Esq. -- tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com ; Alison L. Tsao, Esq. -- atsao@cdflaborlaw.com ; Kent J. Sprinkle, Esq. -- ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com of CARLTON DiSANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP serve as counsel to U.S. Bank. Ellen Lake, Esq.; and Edward J. Wynne, Esq. and J.E.B. Pickett, Esq. of WYNNE LAW FIRM serve as counsel to Sam Duran, et al. A copy of the Court of Appeals' Feb. 6, 2012 Order is available at http://is.gd/eTNYmFfrom Leagle.com. VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Ord. Share Purchaser Claims Not Ripe for Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned In re Vivendi Universal S.A., Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ 5571 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Richard J. Howell said he is not convinced that the ordinary share purchasers' claims have been fully adjudicated and are ripe for appellate review. The district court, thus, denied the plaintiffs' request that it enter a judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as an appropriate alternative method of appeal. The class, composed of persons from the U.S., France, England and the Netherlands who acquired ordinary shares or American Deposit Shares of Vivendi Universal, alleges that the defendants violated certain securities laws. A copy of the District Court's Feb. 6, 2012 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/ChSB7jfrom Leagle.com. WAL-MART STORES: Final Hearing Set for Workers Compensation Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Ceniceros, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a final court hearing has been set for next month on the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its workers compensation providers improperly withheld medical treatment from injured Colorado employees. The suit, Josephine Gianzero et al. vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al., filed in 2009 also alleged that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs alleged that Claims Management Inc., American Home Assurance Co., and Concentra Health Services Inc. conspired though their claims management practices to restrict or deny benefits otherwise available under Colorado's workers comp law. Bentonville, Ark.-based Claims Management administers claims for Bentonville-based Wal-Mart. American Home is a part of New York- based Chartis Inc. and provides Wal-Mart with workers comp insurance. Addison, Texas-based Concentra, a unit of Humana Inc., provides Wal-Mart with treating physicians, court documents state. The settlement agreement calls for Wal-Mart, Claims Management and Concentra to pay up to $8 million to cover payments to a class of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club employees who were injured from Jan. 1, 2001, through Nov. 1, 2011. After a November hearing in Denver federal court at which the settlement received preliminary approval, a hearing has been set for March 23 at which a judge is to decide on final approval of the settlement. The settlement also would cover $4 million in attorneys fees and $625,000 for legal expenses. Injured workers treated at a Concentra-run facility are eligible for up to $520 each, while those treated at other facilities are eligible for up to $50 apiece. Wal-Mart and the other defendants denied all wrongdoing, but the settlement agreement also calls for them to undertake specific actions. Wal-Mart and Claims Management, for example, will be enjoined for four years from "implementing, imposing, circulating, enforcing and/or using any written protocol or directives that are inconsistent" with Colorado's workers comp law and medical treatment guidelines, according to court documents. Concentra, meanwhile, will provide its marketing and sales staff in Colorado with training "regarding the prohibition of dictation of care provisions" in the state's workers comp law. The settlement also includes $10,000 each for the two class representatives -- Ms. Gianzero, who alleged that she sustained injuries while working at a Sam's Club in 2005, and Jennifer Jensen, who alleged she was struck by a wood pallet while working at a Wal-Mart store in 2007. Both were referred to Concentra for treatment. WILINE NETWORKS: Sued Over Undisclosed "Local Access Fee" --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Wiline Networks charges an undisclosed monthly $8.90 "local access fee," a class action claims in Alameda County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Lopez v. WiLine Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. RG12617395 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/Wiline.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 E-mail: helland@nka.com - and - Adam W. Hansen, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER LLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: ahansen@nka.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. 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 * * *