/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120227.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 27, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 40 Headlines 2GIG Technologies: Recalls 40T Modules Used in Go!Control Panels ALLIANCE ONE: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit in Brazil AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Continues to Defend "Lenartz" Suit APPLE INC: Center for Class Action Fairness Objects Settlement CHINA GREEN: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending COINSTAR INC: Awaits Class Certification Ruling in "Piechur" Suit COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Ill. COINSTAR INC: Song-Beverly Act Cases Still Pending in Calif. COINSTAR INC: To File Settlement in Consolidated Securities Suit COINSTAR: Agrees to Settle Investor Class Action for $6 Million CPI INTERNATIONAL: Merger-Related Suit Deal Approved in Dec. E.I. DUPONT: Discovery in Drinking Water Suit in Ohio Ongoing E.I. DUPONT: Recorded $175-MM for Imprelis(R) Claims in FY 2011 FACEBOOK INC: Tracks Users Even After They Log Out, Suit Says FACEBOOK INC: Murphy PA Files Internet Privacy Class Action GENERAL NUTRITION: Abbey Spanier Files C-4 Extreme Class Action GOOGLE INC: Attorney General Challenges New Privacy Policy HOTELS.COM: Faces Class Action in Texas Over Refund Policy LIGHTSQUARED LLC: Investors Face Challenge in Class Action LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Decision Expected on Class Action Settlement MEIJER INC: Recalls 6,102 Touch Point Forced Air Heaters NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims PASSAIC COUNTY, NJ: Human Rights Advocates Laud Jail Settlement PUDA COAL: SEC Files Securities Suit in New York QUAKER OATS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Misleading Label Class Action RAWLINGS CO: Accused of Mistreating Employees in California SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Attorneys to Name New Class Representative UNITED STATES: Yale Immigration Clinic Files Class Action v. ICE * Class Actions Prompt CFPB Probe Into Bank Overdraft Practices ********* 2GIG Technologies: Recalls 40T Modules Used in Go!Control Panels ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 40,000 units of GSM Radio Modules used in Go!Control Panels were voluntarily recalled by 2GIG Technologies Inc., of Lehi, Utah, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. GSM radio modules used inside Go!Control Panels for home security systems can overheat and combust, resulting in a fire or burn hazard to consumers. The company is aware of 22 reports of the product overheating, including three reports of minor smoke, heat or fire damage to the wall where the control panel was mounted. There have been no reports of injuries. The GSM radio module in the Go!Control Panel enables wireless communication between the home security system and alarm monitoring companies. The Go!Control panels are 6-inches high and 8.5-inches wide and are made of white plastic. The front of the control panel has a color touch screen display, a speaker and "emergency" and "home" buttons. A home security company name may also appear on the front of the panel. The recalled radio modules are a component used inside the Go!Control panels. A professional home security system installer can identify the recalled module. Consumers cannot identify the module safely. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12724.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at 2GIG. 2GIG sold the GSM radio modules to home security companies and security system equipment distributors nationwide and in Canada between December 2010 and October 2011 for use in Go!Control Panels. Home security companies installed the modules in control panels as part of home security systems that varied greatly in price. 2GIG has directed home security companies to contact consumers, who will receive a free, installed replacement module. If you have not been contacted and have a question about whether your home security system contains the recalled module, contact your home security company or 2GIG. Consumers should not try to disconnect or disable the recalled product. For more information contact your home security company or 2GIG toll-free at (855) 244- 4832 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.2gig.com/ ALLIANCE ONE: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit in Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------- On June 6, 2008, Alliance One International, Inc.'s Brazilian subsidiary and a number of other tobacco processors were notified of a class action initiated by the ALPAG -- Associacao Lourenciana de Pequenos Agricultrores ("Association of Small Farmers of Sao Lourenco"). The class action's focus is a review of tobacco supplier contracts and business practices, specifically aiming to prohibit processors from notifying the national credit agency of producers in debt, prohibiting processors from deducting tobacco suppliers' debt from payments for tobacco, and seeking the modification of other contractual terms historically used in the purchase of tobacco. The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of Sao Lourenco do Sul. The Company's motion to dismiss the class action is currently pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011. The Company believes this claim to be without merit and is vigorously defending it. Ultimate exposure if an unfavorable outcome is received is not determinable. Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, Alliance One International -- http://aointl.com/-- is an independent leaf tobacco merchant. It provides worldwide service to the large cigarette manufacturers. It purchases tobacco in more than 45 countries and serves manufacturers of cigarettes and other consumer tobacco products in over 90 countries. The Company's revenues are primarily comprised of sales of processed tobacco and fees charged for related services to manufacturers of consumer tobacco products around the world. AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Continues to Defend "Lenartz" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- American Superconductor Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts, according to the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011. Between April 6, 2011, and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; one complaint additionally asserted claims against the underwriters who participated in the Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY. On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company, its officers and directors, and the underwriters who participated in the Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that during the relevant class period, the Company and its officers omitted to state material facts and made materially false and misleading statements relating to, among other things, its projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well as its relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that artificially inflated the value of the Company's stock price. The complaint further alleges that the Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of the Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. With respect to the securities litigation, the Company says an estimate of loss or range of loss cannot be made. There are numerous factors that make it difficult to meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of loss at this stage of these litigation matters, including that: the proceedings are in relatively early stages, there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, information obtained or rulings made during the lawsuits could affect the methodology for calculation of rescission and the related statutory interest rate. In addition, with respect to claims where damages are the requested relief, no amount of loss or damages has been specified. Therefore, the Company is unable at this time to estimate possible losses. The Company believes that these litigations are without merit, and it intends to defend these actions vigorously. APPLE INC: Center for Class Action Fairness Objects Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Law & Industry Daily reports that the Center for Class Action Fairness has filed an objection to the proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Apple Inc. over older models of its MagSafe power adapter. The 60-watt and 85-watt MPM-1 ("T") Power Adapter models that came with Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro portable computers were prone to splitting. The 2006 lawsuit claimed the adapter design "dangerously frays, sparks and prematurely fails to work." In agreeing to settle the lawsuit, Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple has not admitted to any wrongdoing. As a part of the settlement, Apple's Adapter Replacement Program will provide replacement adapters at no charge. Apple has agreed to provide a cash payment up to $79 to class members who purchased a replacement adaptor so long as the purchase was in the first three years of having the computer or adapter and before Nov. 22. Meanwhile, plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking attorneys' fees and expenses of up to $3.1 million for representing the class. The Washington-based Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) filed an objection to the proposed settlement on behalf of class member Marie Gryphon of Jamaica Plain, Mass., who purchased a replacement adapter for an Apple Macbook purchased in August 2006. The objector's pro bono counsel, CCAF founder and noted attorney Theodore Frank, argues that the settlement structure is "unduly burdensome" on class members. For instance, there is no online claims process, a factor that benefits class counsel and the defendant. What's more, the settlement structure "limits class claims, shields attorneys' fees, and conceals the true value of this settlement" to the class members, Mr. Frank wrote, objecting to the proposed settlement in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. "Their [settlement] design enables class counsel and defendants to reduce class recovery so as to benefit themselves, an arrangement that can be made at arm's length without any explicit collusion, so long as class counsel looks the other way when defendants insist upon conditions on class recovery," Mr. Frank wrote in a Jan. 5 filing. A fairness hearing is set for Feb. 27, at which time District Court Chief Judge James Ware will consider whether the proposed settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate," according to the September 2011-issued class notice. In addition to Mr. Frank, the objector is also represented by Daniel Greenberg of Greenberg Legal Services in Little Rock, Ark., and Kyle Graham of Portola Valley, Calif., and a professor at Santa Clara Law. Class counsel in the case is Helen Zeldes of Zeldes & Haeggquist LLP in San Diego and Steven Skalet of Mehri & Skalet PLLC in the District of Columbia. Defense counsel in the case is Penelope Preovolos -- ppreovolos@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP in San Francisco. The case is In re Magsafe Apple Power Adapter Litigation, No. C09- 01911-JW, Northern District of California (San Francisco). CHINA GREEN: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against China Green Agriculture, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 12, 2009, and September 1, 2010. On April 27, 2011, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. On June 13, 2011, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which adds several additional defendants and expands the class period to include purchasers who purchased the Company's common stock between May 12, 2009, and January 4, 2011. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making material misstatements and omissions in the Company's financial statements, securities offering documents, and related disclosures during the class period. The plaintiffs claim that such allegedly misleading statements inflated the price of the Company's common stock and seek monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 19, 2011, and defendants' motions are currently pending. No hearing has been set for defendants' motions. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011. COINSTAR INC: Awaits Class Certification Ruling in "Piechur" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Coinstar, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on motions for class certification and summary judgment in the class action lawsuit filed by Laurie Piechur, according to the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and also denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such estimate. CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including redbox and Coin segments. COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against Coinstar, Inc.'s Redbox subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable information of consumers for a time period in excess of that allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk. Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court has denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims involving retention of information, and is still considering Redbox's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims involving disclosure of information. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such estimate. CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including redbox and Coin segments. COINSTAR INC: Song-Beverly Act Cases Still Pending in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Consumer class action lawsuits filed against a subsidiary of Coinstar, Inc., remain pending in California, according to the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the collection and recording of consumer personal identification information, and violated the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly. A similar complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California resident, John Sinibaldi. A third similar complaint alleging only a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest. Redbox removed the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been consolidated. At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case. After Redbox filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the Schiff case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California but has not been consolidated with the Mehrens case. Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification. In January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class certification as moot. Plaintiffs have until February 2012 to appeal. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and intend to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such estimate. CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including redbox and Coin segments. COINSTAR INC: To File Settlement in Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the consolidated securities litigation filed against Coinstar, Inc., are currently working on a stipulation of settlement that will be filed with the court this month, according to the Coinstar's February 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On January 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Coinstar and certain of its officers. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Five substantially similar complaints were later filed in the same court. Pursuant to an order of the court dated March 14, 2011, these six putative class actions were consolidated as a single action entitled In re Coinstar, Inc. Securities Litigation. On April 19, 2011, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of lead counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on June 17, 2011. The Company moved to dismiss this complaint on July 15, 2011. On October 6, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The order dismissed numerous allegations, including allegations that the Company's October 28, 2010 revenue and earnings guidance was false and misleading. The order also dismissed all claims against three of the Company's officers. The court has set a trial date for September 9, 2013. This case purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the period from October 28, 2010, to February 3, 2011. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws during this period of time by, among other things, issuing false and misleading statements about the Company's current and prospective business and financial results. Plaintiffs claim that, as a result of these alleged wrongs, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated during the purported class period. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, interest, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. On January 11, 2012, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the other parties to settle and resolve the class action. The settlement provides for a payment to the plaintiff class of $6.0 million which will be paid by the Company's insurers. The parties are currently working on a stipulation of settlement that will be filed with the Court in February 2012. The class action settlement is subject to preliminary and, following notice to class members, final approval by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Company has recorded the expected settlement amount and corresponding insurance recovery within other accrued liabilities and prepaid expenses and other current assets, respectively, in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets. Shareholder Derivative Actions Related to this putative class action complaint, on March 2 and 10, 2011, shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington (King County) on March, allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Coinstar, against certain of its current and former directors and officers. Coinstar was named as a nominal defendant. On April 12, 2011, the court consolidated these actions as a single action entitled In re Coinstar, Inc. Derivative Litigation. A third substantially similar complaint was later filed in the same court. On April 18, 2011, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On May 26, 2011, the court consolidated the federal derivative actions and joined them with the securities class actions, captioned In re Coinstar Securities Litigation, for pre-trial proceedings. The derivative plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on July 15, 2011. The Company moved to dismiss this complaint on August 12, 2011, on the ground that the plaintiffs had not made a pre-litigation demand on the Company's Board of Directors and had not demonstrated that such a demand would have been futile. On November 14, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion and issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the compliant. On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs moved to stay the action or defer filing of an amended complaint in order to allow them time to inspect Coinstar's books and records prior to any such amendment. On December 22, 2011, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion. The order grants plaintiffs' request to defer filing of an amended complaint until February 23, 2012, but provided that if plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must pay attorneys' fees incurred by defendants on the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The state and federal derivative complaints arise out of many of the factual allegations at issue in the class action, and generally allege that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to Coinstar by selling Coinstar stock while in possession of material non-public information, and participating in or failing to prevent misrepresentations regarding Redbox expectations, performance, and internal controls. The complaints seek unspecified damages and equitable relief, disgorgement of compensation, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. Because the complaints are derivative in nature, they do not seek monetary damages from Coinstar. CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including redbox and Coin segments. COINSTAR: Agrees to Settle Investor Class Action for $6 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Tribbey, writing for Home Media Magazine, reports that Redbox parent Coinstar has agreed to pay investors $6 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the company of failing to disclose information about its agreements with studios and unjustly inflating its stock price. The settlement, announced in court filings Feb. 17, needs court approval. Investors, led by the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island, filed a consolidated class-action suit in June 2011, accusing Coinstar of "material misstatements and omissions that concerned the company's current and future financial condition." The investors alleged that Coinstar knew it would soon agree to 28-day windows on new-release titles from some studios but continued to list them in their slate of fourth quarter 2010 films in financial documents. "Despite entering into these agreements in [the second quarter of 2010], Coinstar issued increased guidance on Oct. 28, 2010, for [fourth quarter 2010] and [full year] 2010," the court filing reads. "The complaint alleges that these forecasts were made at a time when defendants knew that the company would not be able to achieve them." The class action also claimed Coinstar made false statements regarding the lower demand for the releases subject to the 28-day delay and lower demand for Blu-ray Disc titles. The settlement is small compared with the $96 million Coinstar investors alleged they lost when the company's stock dropped after the 28-day delays were announced. "Even if lead plaintiff prevailed at class certification and summary judgment, there is no doubt that both sides would have to present complex and nuanced information to a jury that would include a 'battle of the experts' on the arcana of damages calculations and securities disclosure requirements," the filing reads. "The results of the trial would almost certainly not end the action, as one side, or both, would likely appeal." The case is similar to a Jan. 16 class-action suit filed against Netflix by investors. That suit alleges some company officers and directors enriched themselves while misleading investors during a 10-month period in 2011. CPI INTERNATIONAL: Merger-Related Suit Deal Approved in Dec. ------------------------------------------------------------ The California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara entered in December 2011 its final approval of a settlement resolving a merger-related class action lawsuit, according to CPI International Holding Corp.'s February 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011. On February 11, 2011, CPI International LLC (formerly, CPI International, Inc., "Predecessor"), then a Delaware corporation and publicly traded company, completed its merger with Catalyst Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of CPII (formerly, CPI International Acquisition, Inc.), a Delaware corporation, whereby Merger Sub merged with and into Predecessor, with Predecessor continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of CPII. The Merger was effected pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 24, 2010, among Predecessor, CPII and Merger Sub. Immediately following the consummation of the Merger and related transactions, Predecessor was converted into a limited liability company and liquidated, and CPI International Acquisition, Inc. changed its name to CPI International, Inc. On July 1, 2010, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed against Predecessor, the members of Predecessor's board of directors, and Comtech Telecommunications Corp. ("Comtech") in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, entitled Continuum Capital v. Michael Targoff, et al. (Case No. 110CV175940). The lawsuit concerned the proposed merger between Predecessor and Comtech, and generally asserted claims alleging, among other things, that each member of Predecessor's board of directors breached his fiduciary duties by agreeing to the terms of the previously proposed merger and by failing to provide stockholders with allegedly material information related to the proposed merger, and that Comtech aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of Predecessor's board of directors. The lawsuit sought, among other things, class action certification and monetary relief. On July 28, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, making generally the same claims against the same defendants, and seeking the same relief. In addition, the amended complaint generally alleged that the consideration that would have been paid to Predecessor's stockholders under the terms of the proposed merger was inadequate. On September 7, 2010, Predecessor terminated the Comtech sale agreement. On November 24, 2010, Predecessor entered in an agreement and plan of merger with CPII and Merger Sub, which are affiliates of The Veritas Capital Fund IV, L.P. ("Veritas Fund"). On December 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which removed Comtech as a defendant, added allegations related to the Merger and to The Veritas Capital Fund IV, L.P. and The Veritas Capital Fund III, L.P. ("Veritas Capital"), and added a claim for attorneys' fees. On December 23, 2010, after Predecessor filed its preliminary proxy statement relating to a special meeting in connection with the approval of the Merger, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, adding allegations related to the disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement. The third amended complaint sought, among other things, class action certification and monetary relief. Predecessor believed the action to be without merit; however, to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation and to complete the proposed Merger without delay, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding concerning settlement with the plaintiff, followed by a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of March 29, 2011. Pursuant to the settlement, among other things, the defendants will receive a release of claims and the plaintiff will dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice in exchange for, among other agreements, an agreement by Predecessor to make certain additional disclosures concerning the Merger, which disclosures were included in a definitive proxy statement filed by Predecessor on January 11, 2011. On October 7, 2011, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. As set forth in the Court's order, the Company caused the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement to be sent to all persons and entities who owned CPI common stock from May 10, 2010 through February 11, 2011. The Court received notification of two individual stockholders seeking exclusion from the settlement before the Court's exclusion and objection deadlines. On December 16, 2011, finding that a full opportunity to be heard was afforded to all interested parties and that sufficient notice was sent to the settlement class, the Court approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice as to all potential parties except the two individuals seeking exclusion. The Court's Order and Final Judgment were entered the same day. E.I. DUPONT: Discovery in Drinking Water Suit in Ohio Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- An action over drinking water contamination pending in Ohio is currently in discovery, according to E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts ("PFOA") in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. The Company is also funding a series of health studies by an independent science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel") in the communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The Company expects the C8 Science Panel to complete these health studies through July 2012 at a total estimated cost of $33 million. In December 2011, the C8 Science Panel announced that on the basis of epidemiologic and other scientific data available to it, the panel has concluded that there is a probable link, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy- induced hypertension, which includes preeclampsia. A panel of medical experts will determine an appropriate medical monitoring protocol, if any, as a result of this finding. If a medical monitoring protocol is defined, DuPont is required to fund a medical monitoring program to pay for such medical testing. Plaintiffs may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human disease(s) for which the C8 Science Panel determines a probable link exists once the C8 Science Panel completes its work. In January 2012, the Company put $1 million in an escrow account as required by the settlement agreement. The Company will reassess its liability based on the medical monitoring panel's determination since costs are not reasonably estimable until a medical monitoring protocol, if any, is identified. The Company will continue to reassess its liability based on the C8 Science Panel's future probable link findings, if any, and associated medical monitoring protocols, if any. Under the settlement agreement, the Company's total obligation to pay for medical monitoring cannot exceed $235 million. In addition, the Company must continue to provide state-of-the-art water treatment systems designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users. During the fourth quarter 2011, the Company reached final resolution of three actions brought by or on behalf of water district customers. The West Virginia action was resolved in DuPont's favor when the U.S. Supreme Court refused in October to hear plaintiffs' appeal. The two consolidated New Jersey actions were finally resolved with the settlement payment of $8.3 million in October 2011. The pending Ohio action was brought by the LHWA and is currently in discovery. In addition to general claims of PFOA contamination of drinking water, the action claims "imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or the environment" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DuPont denies these claims and is defending itself vigorously. While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to those pending matters for which it has established accruals, a range of such losses, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. E.I. DUPONT: Recorded $175-MM for Imprelis(R) Claims in FY 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------- E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company recorded a charge of $175 million in cost of goods sold and other operating charges in 2011 to resolve claims over Imprelis(R), according to the Company's February 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company has received claims and been served with multiple lawsuits seeking class action status alleging that the use of Imprelis(R) herbicide caused damage to certain trees. In August 2011, the Company suspended sales of Imprelis(R). In September 2011, the Company began a process to fairly resolve claims associated with the use of Imprelis(R). The deadline for property owners to file claims was extended to February 1, 2012, as long as the Company received notice of the intent to file by November 30, 2011. The Company has established review processes to verify and evaluate damage claims, and based on current information, the Company recorded a charge of $175 million in cost of goods sold and other operating charges in 2011 to resolve these claims. Additional charges could be incurred, but can be reasonably estimated only after claims are made known and the Company's review processes are completed. DuPont intends to seek recovery from its insurance carriers for costs associated with this matter in excess of $100 million. FACEBOOK INC: Tracks Users Even After They Log Out, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Maguire and Christopher Simon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv- 00807 (N.D. Calif., February 17, 2012) alleges that Facebook has repeatedly represented that it does not track the Internet activity of its users after they log out of Facebook.com, however, Facebook did track its users' Internet activity without their knowledge or consent even after they logged out of Facebook.com. By surreptitiously intercepting, storing and transmitting its users' electronic communications, Facebook engaged in conduct that violates federal wiretapping laws, as well as applicable state law, the Plaintiffs argue. Hence, they seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated. Ms. Maguire is a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina. Mr. Simon is a resident of Baltimore, Maryland. The Plaintiffs have maintained and used active Facebook accounts during the entire Class Period. Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in Palo Alto, California. Facebook.com is a social networking Web site that allows its users to interact with each other, and used by more than 800 million people around the world. The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Murphy, Jr., Esq. William H. Murphy, III, Esq. Tonya Osborne Bana, Esq. Kambon Williams, Esq. MURPHY, P.A. One South Street, 23rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 539-6500 Facsimile: (410)539-6599 E-mail: billy.murphy@murphypa.com hassan.murphy@murphypa.com tonya.bana@murphypa.com kambon.williams@murphypa.com - and - Peter G. Angelos, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS 100 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 649-2000 Facsimile: (410) 659-1782 - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David Stein, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com ds@girardgibbs.com FACEBOOK INC: Murphy PA Files Internet Privacy Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc., the social networking Web site with more than 800 million users worldwide, unlawfully tracked the internet activities of its users, the Baltimore-based Murphy, P.A. alleged in a lawsuit filed on Feb. 17. Facebook ignored repeated inquiries from an internet technology and security blogger who discovered that the unique identifiers Facebook uses to identify its members continued to track their internet usage even after they had logged off of Facebook.com, Murphy, P.A. alleged in the lawsuit. Facebook's actions were unlawful, Murphy, P.A. claimed, because the terms of use and privacy policies posted on Facebook.com advised Facebook members that their post-log-out internet activities were not tracked. According to the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Murphy, P.A., the Baltimore-based Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, and the San Francisco office of Girard Gibbs LLP, Facebook's actions violated several Federal and State laws, including the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Internet Privacy Requirements Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. "The days when online service providers can run roughshod over the privacy rights of their customers are over," said Murphy, P.A. Founding Partner William "Billy" Murphy, Jr. "Companies that operate commercial Web sites, such as Facebook, need to realize the public is increasingly concerned about its privacy rights. Perhaps even more importantly, there is a growing community of security experts and bloggers that is extremely savvy about internet technology and committed to ensuring that people's privacy rights are respected and protected." Murphy, P.A. -- http://www.murphypa.com-- prosecutes class action cases. Contact: Lisa Bennett Murphy PA Telephone: (410) 951-8817 E-mail: Lisa.Bennett@murphypa.com GENERAL NUTRITION: Abbey Spanier Files C-4 Extreme Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams LLP filed a class action lawsuit against General Nutrition Centers Inc. (GNC) and other retailers for selling Cellucor's C-4 Extreme, which the companies marketed as a dietary supplement, but the law firm said it actually contains the "wholly synthetic" ingredient 1,3 Dimethylamylamine (DMAA). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the DMAA contained in C-4 Extreme is wholly synthetic, manufactured and not derived from the geranium plant. DMAA has been in the spotlight this year, with the military banning its sales in its commissaries and a California class action lawsuit that claims bodybuilding and weight management supplements from Florida-based BPI Sports contained undisclosed DMAA. However, DMAA has its proponents too with USPlabs, which makes one of the most popular DMAA products (Jack3D) on the market, saying studies have shown it is derived naturally. "We have conducted some exciting studies at a highly respected U.S. laboratory," reported Jack Deschauer, spokesperson for USPlabs. The American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) didn't ban its members from selling DMAA, but it did prohibit members from labeling the human-synthesized version as a derivative of geranium oil or any part of the geranium plant. AHPA's board approved the trade requirement in August 2011, and it went into effect on Jan. 13, 2012. Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams said GNC, along with Cellucor Sports Nutrition, Woodbolt Distribution Ltd, Woodbolt Management LLC and Woodbolt International, by selling C-4 Extreme, violated the California Consumer Leal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law and the California Unfair Competition Act. This action, filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Civil Action No. 12-1336), was brought as a class action on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased C-4 Extreme at any time during the four years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. The law firm said when consumers purchased and used C-4 Extreme, they were unaware that C-4 Extreme contained the "synthetic and dangerous stimulant" DMAA (also known as 1,3 Dimethylhexaneamine HCl, 1,3 Dimethylhexaneamine, Methylhexaneamine and Geranamine) and that DMAA was not derived from the geranium plant or any other natural source. Because the plaintiff alleges the DMAA contained in C-4 Extreme is a synthetic product, it says it is illegal. "The safety concerns associated with DMAA have been well- documented, including concerns that DMAA is a dangerous and addictive substance that can cause headache, nausea and stroke," Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams said in a statement. "Experts have noted DMAA has a chemical structure similar to amphetamines and ephedrine, and can cause increases in heart rate and blood pressure and even death." GOOGLE INC: Attorney General Challenges New Privacy Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- Gus G. Sentementes, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that online privacy issues jumped to the forefront on Feb. 22 in Maryland as the attorney general challenged Google Inc.'s new privacy policy, a few days after a pair of Baltimore attorneys filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook Inc. for allegedly tracking users who ventured off its online social network. Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler sent a letter to Google that demanded a meeting in a week about the company's changes to its privacy policy, which gives the Internet company deeper access to users' data across its services, such as Gmail and YouTube. Thirty-five other states joined Mr. Gansler in support. "I am deeply concerned about Google's effort to push a major privacy change on consumers without giving them the choice to opt in, or at a minimum the opportunity to opt out," Mr. Gansler said in a statement. Separately, attorneys William H. "Billy" Murphy and Peter G. Angelos, who owns the Baltimore Orioles, filed a federal lawsuit against Facebook in California -- one of among a dozen suits in 11 states that will be consolidated by judges in California. The two attorneys have litigated several major class-action lawsuits and won multi-million-dollars payouts over the years. "Facebook made a promise to its users that it would not track their Web site activity unless they were signed into Facebook," said Mr. Murphy. "And that promise turned out to be false." Facebook plans to fight the cases in court. "We believe that these cases are without merit, and we will fight them vigorously," said Andrew Noyes, a Facebook spokesman. Online privacy continues to grow as a flashpoint for Web users, technology companies and Congress. Consumers are increasingly using social networking applications that connect them with other people and companies. Facebook has more than 800 million users worldwide. More people are using smartphones that can access the Internet and potentially share the personal information with companies that provide software on the devices. Privacy watchdogs have long advocated for safeguards for consumers when it comes to harvesting their personal data. Google has drawn fire for its forthcoming privacy changes from online watchdogs. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also questioned Google's apparent tracking of Internet users through Apple Inc.'s Safari web browser. Congress and state officials are looking at how Internet companies, such as Google and Facebook, handle online privacy. Many Internet companies, big and small, collect user data in order to serve more relevant advertisements to their Web visitors. It is a business model that large companies, and even smaller start- ups, rely on for revenues. Currently, users of Google's services can be subject to more than 60 different privacy policies. Those policies have allowed Google to combine user information across services for years, a company spokesman said. The new policy starting March 1 would give Google access to a user's information in a unified manner across all its services, according to Mr. Gansler's office. The company presents the changes as an improvement for users. Google has said users' information will remain private, it won't sell personal data to advertisers, and its users still can use its services, such as Google Maps and Search, without signing in. "Our updated privacy policy will make our privacy practices easier to understand, and it reflects our desire to create a seamless experience for our signed-in users," said Chris Gaither, a Google spokesman, in an e-mail statement. In the lawsuits filed against Facebook, the plaintiffs -- including those represented by the Baltimore attorneys -- allege that Facebook tracked users, even after they logged off the site, according to court papers. The lawsuit filed by Messrs. Murphy and Angelos is one of the most comprehensive among the cases filed by several firms across the country this month. The Baltimore duo are vying with other law firms to be named as lead attorneys in a class-action suit against Facebook. Messrs. Murphy and Angelos have years of experience in high- profile, class-action litigation. Two years ago, Murphy won a $34 million verdict for restaurant workers in Baltimore who were sickened by carbon monoxide poisoning. Mr. Angelos won a $54 million settlement against Constellation Energy Group Inc. four years ago for Anne Arundel County residents whose groundwater had been contaminated by the company's disposal of coal ash. Mr. Angelos did not return a phone call seeking comment. Messrs. Murphy and Angelos now have their sights on Facebook. Facebook's coffers are expected to fill this year with proceeds from an initial public offering that is expected to raise as much as $10 billion. Analysts predict that Facebook's market valuation could top $75 billion. In court papers, the two Baltimore lawyers cited several federal and California laws that Facebook allegedly breached when they used "cookies" -- a piece of digital tracking information stored in web browser -- to track users across Web sites other than Facebook. The lawsuit said that an Australian blogger discovered the tracking activity in 2010 and blogged about it last September, triggering interest from online advocacy groups and lawmakers. A Baltimore man, Christopher Simon, is the lead plaintiff for the suit filed by Messrs. Murphy and Angelos. Mr. Simon could not be reached for comment, and Mr. Murphy declined to discuss his client. HOTELS.COM: Faces Class Action in Texas Over Refund Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Hotels.com does not back up its promise to refund money if hotel guests can find a better rate online, but sets an "arbitrary and undisclosed limit" on refunds, an irate customer claims in a class action. Kaylen Silverberg filed a class action against Hotels.com in Dallas County Court. She claims the company will not back up its promise: "'after you book with Hotels.com, if you find a lower publicly available rate on line for the same dates, hotel, and room category, we will march the price and refund you the difference.'" "As it turns out," Ms. Silverberg says. "Hotels.com has an arbitrary and undisclosed policy to refund only a portion of the difference between its rate and other, lower rates. For example, in Silverberg's case, Hotels.com stated that 'was can only refund you $142,' even though the price difference was substantially greater." Ms. Silverberg claims she booked a room through Hotels.com for two nights in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., for $355 per night, then found a $223 rate at HotelClub.com. A third Web site advertised an even lower rate, $213, Ms. Silverberg says. She says she asked Hotels.com to back up its guarantee and was told it would refund her only $71 a night, which she calls "an arbitrary and undisclosed limit." She seeks restitution and class damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. A copy of the Complaint in Silverberg v. Hotels.com LP, Case No. 12-01819 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/22/Hotels.com.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary D. Eisenstat, Esq. Keith R. Verges, Esq. FIGARI & DAVENPORT, L.L.P. 3400 Bank of America Plaza 901 Main Street Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 939-2000 LIGHTSQUARED LLC: Investors Face Challenge in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Paula Schaap, writing for The Deal, reports that investors who claim Philip Falcone wrongfully burned through $3.4 billion of their money for his wireless telecommunications startup LightSquared LLC may find it tough to prove that the hedge fund manager changed his spots and owes them a refund. The picture painted by Lili Schad, the lead plaintiff in the putative class action against Mr. Falcone, is one of a hedge fund manager taking advantage of his investing prowess to bamboozle wealthy, but not necessarily ultra-sophisticated investors, into coming on board to one enterprise, only to find out that he used their money for something entirely different. Ms. Schad, for example, is a documentary filmmaker whose movies often celebrate the outdoor life. Her father, Robert, founded Husky Injection Molding Systems. But Mr. Falcone's investment in bankrupt SkyTerra Communications Inc.'s wireless spectrum, which he then used to start up LightSquared, could be construed as the kind of distressed investing that investors were in for when they signed on with his hedge fund, Harbinger Capital Partners LLC. Starting in 2007, Mr. Falcone raised more than $20 billion for his new fund, mostly from family offices and wealthy individuals, rather than institutional investors, like banks or pension funds, according to a person with knowledge of the fund. Ms. Schad claims she invested $4 million in Mr. Falcone's fund with the understanding that he would invest in distressed investments; not unlike the subprime mortgages that Mr. Falcone was famous for betting against. That is the main tipoff to one of the main problems investors will face in litigating their lawsuit. Eric Lewis, of Lewis Baach PLLC, says the courts, especially in the federal system, scrutinize the offering documents to see how much discretion the manager has in how he invests money. "Does it look like an investment manager who made a material change to the strategy," Mr. Lewis says. "Or does it look like an investor who took the big gains when they came in and now are shocked to find out they are losing 18%?" After all, a lot of investors got very wealthy in 2007 following Mr. Falcone in his bet against the subprime mortgage debacle. In the LightSquared case, however, Jacob Zamansky, of Zamansky & Associates, one of Ms. Schad's lead attorneys, says the fund's strategy changed materially when Mr. Falcone went "all in" on his wireless network dream. Mr. Falcone knew, as early as 2002, that he would be up against the makers of GPS systems, which complained that LightSquared's technology would interfere with theirs, Mr. Zamansky claims. LightSquared lost that fight when the Federal Communications Commission withdrew its support for a waiver necessary for the system to operate. A spokesman for Harbinger Capital says that the suit is without merit and would be vigorously contested. One of the few institutional investors in the Harbinger fund was Goldman, Sachs & Co. But Goldman, being . . . well . . . Goldman, got its $50 million out in 2009, while other investors weren't allowed to withdraw their funds. The Securities and Exchange Commission has started an inquiry into that situation. Goldman Sachs has, in the past, refused to comment on its Harbinger investment. For those investors who couldn't get out, the fund was down 3.44% in November and down 13.49% year-to-date, and had shrunk to assets under management of $5.7 billion, the lawsuit alleges. Of that $5.7 billion, 60% was sunk into LightSquared, and Harbinger reportedly marked down his investment 50%. LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Decision Expected on Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Anderson, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that the board that runs the state property insurer of last resorts was set to meet on Feb. 22 to discuss and possibly vote on settlement in a lawsuit involving about 25,000 policyholders who allege the company was late in adjusting claims after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The board of the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. were scheduled to meet at 1:00 p.m. at the Department of Insurance offices in Baton Rouge. The board was expected to discuss the settlement in the case behind closed doors then vote on it in a public session. An earlier meeting was scheduled, but was canceled when some of the board members indicated they could not attend. Both sides said they felt that a solution in the long-running litigation could be reached at the Feb. 22 meeting. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit won a judgment -- which has been upheld by the state Supreme Court twice -- of $92.8 million in 2009. With legal interest of about $10,200 a day, that total is now about $104 million. The Citizens board has offered a settlement of $80 million with no more than $25 million going to lawyers. That is on top of $6 million the board authorized for payment instead of an appeal bond after the 2009 judgment was rendered. Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon infuriated the lawyers in the class action by revealing they wanted $123 million to settle all claims and liability, $20 million less than the $143 million they said was the total liability. Sen. Eric LaFleur, D-Ville Platte, a member of the Citizens board and a lawyer, met with the plaintiffs lawyers 10 days ago and a counter-offer was made, but no one said what it is. That offer is on the table for discussion and a possible vote on Feb. 22. MEIJER INC: Recalls 6,102 Touch Point Forced Air Heaters -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Meijer Inc., of Grand Rapids, Michigan, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,102 forced air heaters. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Exposed and unshielded electrical components can cause the heater to overheat and melt, posing fire and electrical shock hazards. Meijer received one report of a unit's base burning, melting and damaging the carpet beneath it. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Touch Point brand oscillating forced air fan heaters with model number HW-218 and date code 0811. The model number and date code are on a silver sticker on the bottom of the heater. Universal Product Code (UPC) 7-13733-30927-1 is on the bottom of the packaging. The heaters are white, 12 inches tall, 9 inches wide and 8 inches deep. They have two round control knobs and a red warning light on the top front, and a black on/off switch on the front base that controls the fan's oscillation. The words "Touch Point" appear on the right front of the heater's base. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12115.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Meijer stores in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio from September 2011 through November 2011 for about $20. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled heaters and return them to any Meijer store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Meijer at (800) 927-8699 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.meijer.com/ NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- James P. Tessitore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Novellus Systems, Inc., Richard S. Hill, William R. Spivey, Neil R. Bonke, Youssef A. El-Mansy, Glen G. Ossley, Delbert Whitaker, Yoshio Nishi, Ann D. Rhoads, Krishna Saraswat, Lam Research Corporation and BLMS Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-00792 (N.D. Calif., February 17, 2012) is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Novellus arising out of a transaction in which Lam Research will acquire each share of Novellus' common stock in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $3.3 billion. In approving the Proposed Acquisition, the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to sell Novellus without first taking steps to ensure that the Plaintiff and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration. Mr. Tessitore is a shareholder of Novellus and a resident of New York. Novellus is a California corporation. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Novellus. Lam Research, a Delaware corporation, is a major supplier of wafer fabrication equipment and services to the worldwide semiconductor industry for more than 30 years. BLMS is a California corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Lam Research. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0610 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com - and - David A.P. Brower, Esq. Brian C. Kerr, Esq. BROWER PIVEN 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 501-9000 Facsimile: (212) 501-0300 E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com kerr@browerpiven.com PASSAIC COUNTY, NJ: Human Rights Advocates Laud Jail Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Zach Patberg, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that human rights advocates on Feb. 22 hailed as "a huge victory" a settlement between Passaic County and inmates who filed a class- action lawsuit over conditions at the jail more than three years ago. The agreement, made in late December behind closed doors, will likely bind the county to a far-reaching jail overhaul, promising better ventilation, safety equipment, sanitation and officer treatment for its more than 1,000 inmates, according to a copy of the settlement. It will now go before federal judge March 27. "This settlement will be a huge victory for the inmates of Passaic County Jail, which at one time was notorious for its inhumane and degrading conditions," said Patricia Perlmutter, an attorney at Seton Hall University's Center for Social Justice, which led the case with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. The lawsuit's original plaintiffs in 2008 were eight inmates who said their food was contaminated with rodent droppings, sewage leaked through floor drains and corrections officers beat inmates out of view of security cameras. The settlement, however, would apply to the entire jail population. It does not seek money, but it would require that a list of reforms be posted in every room and cell in the jail, and that an independent monitor inspect the jail at least twice a year. Among the other requirements: -- A new fire detection and alarm system. -- A new ventilation system that would limit temperature inside to no less than 65 degrees in the winter and no more than 80 degrees in the summer. -- More space between beds and toilets. -- Incentives to keep the jail population under 1,022 to avoid the crowding that plagued the facility in 2007. -- More medical and mental health staff to shorten delays to medical and mental health care. -- Mandatory training in proper use of force for corrections officers, and new software to help catch officers using excessive force on inmates. In a separate settlement filed Feb. 13, the state Department of Corrections has agreed to remove inmates from the Passaic County Jail within 20 days of their conviction or revocation of their parole. The DOC also would inspect jail at least once a year. The settlement is still waiting for a fairness hearing from a federal judge to be set. Much of the work on the jail is already under way -- with some completed -- since the county began negotiating a settlement in 2009, according to the Sheriff's Office. Sprinklers and smoke detectors have been installed in most of the building. The air conditioning and heating system is under construction in parts of the jail. The population is down to 1,048 from 1,700 in 2007. And the medical unit now has a full-time director and an extra social worker. Sheriff Richard Berdnik "has been moving this process along," said Bill Maer, a spokesman for the Sheriff's Office. "He's worked to making sure it's resolved in a timely manner." He added however, that deficiencies, such as the proximity of toilets and beds, "we can't control" unless the jail itself is expanded. Mr. Berdnik was not in office when the lawsuit was filed. The county has so far spent nearly $8 million on fire safety installations and the first phase of the ventilation upgrades. It will start searching for contractors in April for the second phase at an expected cost of $5 million, county spokesman Keith Furlong said. "They've made steps, but there's a long way to go," said Jeanne LoCicero, an ACLU attorney. "We think it could take up to five years." The settlement, if a judge approves it next month, represents a major commitment for jail, which is more than 50 years old. The cost of dealing with overcrowding and building repairs has been so high that county officials considered closing it last year. That plan, which would have housed Passaic inmates in the Bergen and Essex county jails, was dropped after unions objected. Complaints about the jail became public after Seton Hall's Center for Social Justice sent students teams to document its problems. The center and the ACLU sued in 2008. The plaintiffs' attorneys said the settlement's most important item calls for the appointment of independent monitor, Susan McCampbell, a former acting sheriff in Florida who has done similar court-appointed jail evaluations in Illinois and the Virgin Islands. Ms. McCampbell, with consultants paid by the county, would conduct at least two jail inspections a year, have private access to inmates and jail records, and submit progress reports. The lawsuit's defendants include the county freeholders, former Sheriff Jerry Speziale, former Warden Charles Meyers, Deputy Warden George Hayman and former state DOC Commissioner George Hayman. Judge Dennis Cavanaugh, of the U.S. District Court in Newark, will rule on the settlement after the March 27 fairness hearing. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs' lawyers are already receiving feedback from inmates who have read the settlement posted around the jail. The responses, describing such complaints as poor sanitation, "underscore the problems that we're trying to correct," Ms. Perlmutter said. PUDA COAL: SEC Files Securities Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------ Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on Feb. 22 disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Chairman and the former Chief Executive Officer of Puda Coal, Inc., alleging violations of, among other things, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is the court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel in a securities class action lawsuit, also pending in the Southern District of New York, which was filed in April 2011 and seeks to recover shareholder losses on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Puda common stock and call options, or sold Puda put options between November 13, 2009 and October 3, 2011, and also on behalf of purchasers of Puda shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's December 8, 2010 public offering of its common stock. The lawsuit filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, In re Puda Coal Securities Inc. et al. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV- 2598-BSJ, alleges violations of federal securities laws and has been assigned to United States District Judge Barbara S. Jones. A copy of the amended Consolidated Shareholder Complaint filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is available on the firm's Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com Copies of the SEC Complaint are available on the SEC's Web site at http://www.sec.gov Please contact us by phone to discuss these actions or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773- 9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com Puda purports to supply metallurgical coking coal to the industrial sector in the People's Republic of China (PRC) through the Company's indirect equity ownership in Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd. ("Shanxi Coal") -- a PRC-based coal mining company and Puda's sole revenue source. The SEC Complaint alleges that the Company's Chairman, Ming Zhao ("Zhao"), with the knowledge and complicity of former CEO Liping Zhu ("Zhu"), "looted" the Company by secretly transferring Puda's controlling interest in Shanxi Coal to Zhao, through a series of transactions which the Company failed to disclose in its periodic financial reports. Specifically, the SEC alleges that in September 2009 Zhao transferred Puda's 90% stake in Shanxi Coal to himself, and subsequently transferred a 49% ownership interest in Shanxi Coal to CITIC Trust Co. Ltd. ("CITIC Trust"), a private equity fund controlled by the largest state-owned investment firm in the PRC. Zhao then caused Shanxi Coal to pledge 51% of its assets to CITIC Trust, as collateral for a $370 million loan to Shanxi Coal, and in exchange Zhao received more than 1.2 billion preferred shares of an investment trust holding CITIC Trust's 49% stake in Shanxi Coal. The SEC Complaint alleges that Zhao and Zhu failed to disclose the foregoing transactions to investors, and further alleges that in 2010 Puda conducted two public offerings -- purportedly to raise capital for mine acquisitions by Shanxi Coal -- without disclosing that Puda no longer owned any ownership stake in Shanxi Coal. As a result, CITIC Trust was selling interests in Shanxi Coal to Chinese investors, at the same time Zhao and Zhu were misrepresenting to U.S. investors that Puda still owned a 90% stake in that company. Likewise, the shareholder class action alleges that Puda was able to raise more than $100 million from public investors by selling shares in what was effectively an empty shell company, netting roughly $14.5 million of illicit proceeds from the sale of approximately 2.9 million shares of Puda stock in a February 2010 offering, and an additional $108 million from the sale of 9 million shares to public investors in a December 2010 secondary offering of common stock, which was underwritten by Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. and Brean Murray, Carret & Co., LLC. If you purchased Puda shares pursuant to the Company's December 8, 2010 public offering of its common stock, if you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lionel Z. Glancy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com QUAKER OATS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Misleading Label Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that pending the outcome of similar claims in California, a federal judge refused to dismiss one of several class actions alleging that Quaker Oats mislabels its products as "heart healthy" despite transfat content. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Askin, et al. v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 11-cv-00111 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/22/Quaker.pdf RAWLINGS CO: Accused of Mistreating Employees in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Monica Quintero and Victoria Quintero, and Members of the general public similarly situated v. The Rawlings Company LLC, Rawlings Group, LLC, Rawlings Financial Services, LLC, Rawlings Company, Rawlings, Inc., Rawlings Corporation, Rawlings Corporation Inc., Rawlings Co. Inc., Mercury Casualty Company, Mercury Insurance Inc., Mercury Insurance Group and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC479351 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., February 21, 2012) alleges that the Defendants caused injury, loss and harm to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of mistreating the Plaintiffs and all perspective class members. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants have engaged in unreasonable, unfair, deceptive and improper business practices. The Plaintiffs were employed by and worked for the Defendants in the collection/insurance business. The Defendants were involved in a joint business venture and partnership. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy J. Donahue, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY J. DONAHUE 374 South Glassell Street Orange, CA 92866 Telephone: (714)289-2445 Facsimile: (714)289-2450 E-mail: tdonahue@attorneydonahue.com SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Attorneys to Name New Class Representative ------------------------------------------------------------ T.S. Last, writing for DChieftain.com, reports that attorneys representing member-owners of Socorro Electric Cooperative in a proposed class-action lawsuit will name a new representative of the class, according to papers recently filed. Originally, Charlie Wagner, a member of the co-op's board of trustees, was listed as the class representative in a countersuit which names the nine other trustees, four former trustees and the co-op's former general manager as defendants. The countersuit charges the cross claim defendants with breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. "Counsel anticipates that an amended complaint on the class action portion of this litigation (the cross claim) will be filed shortly, removing Mr. Wagner as proposed class action representative and thus as cross claim plaintiff," reads a response to the co-op's motion for a protective order against Mr. Wagner. In the co-op's motion for a protective order filed Feb. 1 in 13th Judicial District Court in Los Lunas, it asserts that Wagner has been attempting to sidestep rules of discovery by requesting information by way of the Inspection of Public Records Act. Mr. Wagner says he was doing no such thing. He told El Defensor Chieftain that his requests for information regarding records of payments made to the Kennedy & Han, the law firm representing Socorro Electric in defense of the countersuit, was done in his role as a trustee, he said. In the response to the motion for a protective order, Stephen Kortemeier, of Socorro's Deschamps & Kortemeier law firm, wrote that counsel was "absolutely unaware" of Mr. Wagner's requests for information and that it had not received any information or documents from Mr. Wagner as a result of his requests. "It appears . . . that Mr. Wagner has been merely exercising his rights as a trustee to inform himself on matters affecting the financial well being of the cooperative: a responsibility clearly within his fiduciary obligations to the membership, in which he may be remiss if he doesn't," Mr. Kortemeier wrote. The response asks the judge hearing the case to deny the co-op's request for a protective order in that the matter will become moot once the amended complaint is filed. It further argues that a protective order would infringe upon Mr. Wagner's obligations as a trustee. The filing suggests an arrangement be worked out where documents provided to Mr. Wagner in his role as a trustee and those furnished through discovery could be marked to distinguish the difference. It also asked that the judge reaffirm Mr. Wagner's right to access information in his capacity as a trustee. The response came in the wake of a flurry of filings by Kennedy & Han in recent weeks, including four motions to dismiss the countersuit and a motion to stay discovery. Citing a heavy workload, Deschamps & Kortemeier asked for a one- week extension to respond to the co-op's motions. Tenth Judicial District Court Judge Albert J. Mitchell Jr., assigned to preside over the case by the New Mexico Supreme Court chief justice, last week granted a request for hearing to address the motions. That hearing will be held by phone on Feb. 27. The countersuit came in response to a lawsuit Socorro Electric filed against all of its approximately 10,000 member-owners in June 2010. The co-op was challenging the validity of new bylaws that require it to operate with greater transparency. Judge Mitchell ruled against the co-op last May, saying bylaws that compel it to follow the Open Meetings Act and Inspection of Public Records Act were properly adopted and members were within their rights to impose them on what is a democratically controlled cooperative. UNITED STATES: Yale Immigration Clinic Files Class Action v. ICE ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary E. O'Leary, writing for New Haven Register, reports that an immigration law clinic at Yale Law School has filed a federal class action lawsuit challenging the use of detainers by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and asked on Feb. 22 that the suit be expedited now that ICE is rolling out Secure Communities in Connecticut statewide. "Detainers are the linchpin of the Secure Communities program. Without them, the program cannot function," said Matthew Vogel, law student intern at the Worker and Immigration Rights Advocacy Clinic, in a statement. "But confinement pursuant to these ICE notices is unconstitutional and unauthorized by Congress. The Department of Correction cannot hold people without lawful authority to do so," he said in a statement. Secure Communities is a data sharing program where the FBI sends arrest information to ICE, which can then request the prison to detain the individual for 48 hours to allow it to determine if it wants to assume custody after a case has been adjudicated. Secure Communities was scheduled to go live in all of Connecticut on Feb. 22, but the plaintiff in the lawsuit, was charged in a bar room fight months ago. Sergio Brizuela, an East Haven man, was arrested in that town in November and ultimately pleaded to interfering with a police officer, a misdemeanor, in February. Travis Silva, another law student intern, said the suit contends that detainers violate the Fourth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Mr. Silva said Mr. Brizuela could not post bond and was incarcerated at the New Haven Correctional Center on Whalley Avenue since November. After pleading to the misdemeanor on Feb. 10, he was held for four days before being picked up by ICE. Mr. Silva said not only do they challenge the constitutionality of the detainers, but he said no one can be held for more than 48 hours without being charged with a crime. The suit names Leo Arnone, commissioner of corrections, and Jose Feliciano, the warden of the Whalley Avenue facility. Mr. Silva said they want the court to expedite the suit because they fear there will be an increase in unlawful detentions now that Secure Communities is officially expected to be put in place in Connecticut. It wants the court to order the Department of Correction to answer the lawsuit within days. The law clinic had broadly hinted it would legally challenge detainers in a recent press conference. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court last week and officially served on state officials on Feb. 22, Mr. Silva said. The suit was announced on the same day that Immigrant advocates gathered at the Capitol on Feb. 22 to urge Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to not participate in the federal Secure Communities program or to at least set guidelines on who they would detain, if so requested. About 70 immigrants and their supporters presented a petition that had the backing of 30 organizations to Michael Lawlor, who vets criminal justice policies for the governor. Mr. Lawlor told them that Mr. Malloy understands their concerns and spoke out against the danger of racial profiling when he was mayor of Stamford and "in particular he came to the defense of people who were just trying to get work." Secure Communities was sold to the states as rounding up the "worst of the worst" serious felons and national security risks, but across the country immigrants with no criminal charges or misdemeanors have ended up deported. Mr. Silva said Brizuela does not fit the priorities listed by ICE for deportation. He also has a U.S. child and fiancee. Mr. Silva said in his case, Mr. Brizuela was picked up by ICE in an East Haven case, even though another arm of the U.S. Justice Department has charged its police with profiling Latinos and four officers have been indicted. The Department of Homeland Security's own task force criticized Secure Communities for its confusing goals and its conflicts with local police departments when traffic violators and minor offenses are targeted. It said there is consensus around deporting serious criminals and it should build on this. In Fairfield County, the only place in Connecticut where the program has officially rolled out, more than 70 percent of those deported had no criminal record or had a misdemeanor conviction. * Class Actions Prompt CFPB Probe Into Bank Overdraft Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Ylan Q. Mui, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was expected to launch an inquiry on Feb. 22 into banks' overdraft practices, which have been in regulatory crosshairs in recent years. The bureau said it will look into whether banks are reordering customers' debit-card charges to maximize overdraft fees. Reordering transactions can double or triple penalties, and the practice has been the target of several class-action lawsuits against the nation's biggest banks. The CFPB's inquiry also will focus on bank overdraft policies, how they market the plans, and their impact on low-income and young consumers. The agency will solicit feedback from the public. "Overdraft practices have the capacity to inflict serious economic harm on the people who can least afford it," CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. "We want to learn how consumers are affected, and how well they are able to anticipate and avoid paying penalty fees." Overdraft fees have long irked consumers, who have complained that withdrawals of as little as $3 from their bank accounts have resulted in penalties as high as $37. As the recession squeezed Americans' budgets and anger at the financial industry reached fever pitch, regulators and lawmakers began moving to curtail banks' fees. In 2010, the Federal Reserve began prohibiting banks from imposing overdraft charges unless a customer had signed up for the service. The rule only applies to debit-card transactions, not to checks or recurring withdrawals such as automatic bill pay. Meanwhile, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. issued guidelines calling for the smaller banks it oversees to set limits on the number of times customers can be charged overdraft fees in one day and offer alternatives to those who overdraw their accounts more than six times in a year. Its guidelines encompass checks and recurring payments. As a result of the new regulations and consumer uproar, several banks, including Bank of America, ended their overdraft programs all together. A poll by Consumer Reports shortly after the Fed's ban went into effect found that only 22 percent of customers had opted into the service. Of those customers, more than half had experienced an overdraft in the past six months, the poll found. One thing regulators left unaddressed, however, was the order that banks processed charges. That issue has been winding its way through the nation's court system instead. In 2010, a California judge ordered Wells Fargo to return $203 million in overdraft fees to customers whose transactions were reordered. Chase, Bank of America and several other banks have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to settle a separate class-action lawsuit over the practice. The CFPB said it is seeking information on how prevalent the practice remains and how it affects consumers. It is also concerned about a 2008 FDIC report that found that 9 percent of checking account customers made up about 84 percent of overdraft charges, suggesting that the fees were concentrated among low- income customers. The bureau said it also hopes to educate consumers about the overdraft rules. It is launching a campaign called "What's your overdraft status?" and has developed a "penalty fee box" that would appear on checking account statements to help consumers understand any overdraft charges. ********* 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 * * *