/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120301.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 1, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 43 Headlines CITY OF TULSA, OK: Jail Faces Class Action Over Lax Oversight CITY OF TULSA, OK: EMSA Sued Over Utility Fee Program CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Order on Arbitration Bid in "Newton" Suit CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Ruling in "Minnick" Class Suit vs. Unit CLEARWIRE CORP: Evidentiary Hearing in "Kwan" Suit on June 26 CLEARWIRE CORP: To Renew Arbitration Motion in "Dennings" Suit FELTEX: More Investors Join Class Action in New Zealand HALLIBURTON CO: Appeals Certification Order in Securities Suit HALLIBURTON CO: Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions in Macondo MDL HALLIBURTON CO: Faces Suits Over Operations in Duncan Facility HOLIDAY INN: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Suit in Calif. Super. Court Remains Stayed HUNTSMAN CORP: Cert. Hearing in Polyether Polyol Suits on April 2 HUNTSMAN CORP: Certification Hearing in Maryland Suit on Aug. 16 HUNTSMAN CORP: Dismissed From Direct Cases Over Polyether Polyol INYX INC: May 4 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California KELLY SERVICES: Awaits Final Okay of "Fuller" Suit Settlement KELLY SERVICES: Paid 1.9 Mil. Settlement Payment in 4Q of 2011 KENNETH COLE: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims MASTERCARD INC: "Attridge" Suit Remanded to Trial Court in Jan. MASTERCARD INC: Consumer Suits Pending in New Mexico and Calif. MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Sept. 12 Trial in Interchange Fee Suit MASTERCARD INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over ATM Rule Surcharges MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends Interchange Fee Suits in Canada MASTERCARD INC: Continues to File Conversion Fee Suit Dismissals MERRILL LYNCH: Black Brokers Win Class Certification MONSANTO: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval MONSANTO: Judge Dismisses Farmers' Class Action OGE ENERGY: "Buser" Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in October 2011 OGE ENERGY: "Price I" Suit Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time OGE ENERGY: "Price II" Suit Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time OKLAHOMA GAS: "Price I" Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time PG&E CORP: Trial in San Bruno Accident Suits to Start on July 23 PPG INDUSTRIES: Briefing in TOI MDL to Be Completed in Late 2012 PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Funds Distribution to Occur in 2012 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Limit NJLAD Application Pending QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Awaits Order on NID-Related Suit Dismissal Bid QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Securities Suit vs. Celera Pending in Calif. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Employees Class Suit in New Jersey REVLON INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over 2009 Exchange Offer RYDER SYSTEM: Defends Suits Alleging Wage & Hour Law Violations SYNGENTA AG: Holiday Shores Suit vs. Unit Currently in Discovery THOMSON REUTERS: Faces Copyright Infringement Class Action TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Ruling on Asbestos-Related Suit Appeals TRAVELERS COS: Still Awaits Final OK of Antitrust Suit Deal TRAVELERS COS: Objectors Appeal Settlement Order in "Safeco" Suit VENOCO INC: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by T. Marquez VIA RAIL: Sutts, Strosberg Mulls Class Action Over Train Crash WALGREEN CO: Sued Over Unpaid OT Wages for Pharmacists in Calif. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaits Decisions on Motions in ERISA Suit WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Suits Over Fuel & Environmental Charges WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: AWP Suit Settlement Approved in December WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: FTC's Appeal in Androgel Suit Pending WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing in TCPA-Violation Suit on Mar. 21 WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plea for Review in Cipro Suit Pending WELLCARE HEALTH: Repurchased $112.5-MM Subordinated Notes in Dec. * Securities Class Actions Gain Traction in Canada ********* CITY OF TULSA, OK: Jail Faces Class Action Over Lax Oversight ------------------------------------------------------------- David Harper, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a Tulsa attorney known for his involvement in class-action federal lawsuits that brought about change within Oklahoma's prisons and the Tulsa Police Department is taking a different approach in trying to improve what he believes to be deficient conditions in the Tulsa jail. Louis Bullock, who also played an integral role in the case that led to the closing of the Hissom Memorial Center in Sand Springs and the assimilation of its developmentally disabled residents into the community, is connected to four lawsuits filed in the last several months that deal with alleged incidents that occurred at the jail. The most recent civil case, filed earlier this month, deals with a purported rape between inmates that allegedly occurred last September. A criminal case is pending in Tulsa County District Court against 32-year-old Jessie Earl Johnson, who is accused of raping a 21- year-old woman in the jail's medical unit last Sept. 27. The civil case filed in Tulsa federal court on Feb. 16 claims the alleged sexual assault is "symptomatic of a jail spun out of control. Plaintiff fell victim to a culture and system of inadequate supervision, monitoring, security . . . and indifference toward the safety of female inmates." After first-degree rape and sexual battery charges were filed last October against Mr. Johnson, Sgt. Shannon Clark, a spokesman for the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, said jail officials were conducting an internal investigation of the medical unit and its operations. Mr. Clark said recently that the internal investigation has concluded and the office has taken "corrective measures to protect against any type of incident of this type in the future." Tulsa County Undersheriff Brian Edwards said the investigation led to action being taken against two employees. The federal lawsuit follows another pending civil case which alleges that a then-17-year-old female inmate was "repeatedly sexually assaulted and raped" by a male who was then a detention officer at the jail -- who has not been criminally charged -- in early 2010. The other two lawsuits deal with inmates who evidently committed suicide in the Tulsa Jail. The Tulsa law firm of Smolen, Smolen & Roytman is working as co- counsel with Mr. Bullock's firm on the four lawsuits. Smolen, Smolen & Roytman has previously served as plaintiffs' attorneys in a series of now-settled lawsuits filed by people who claimed they were victims of racial discrimination while employed by the sheriff's office. Attorney Daniel Smolen -- danielsmolen@ssrok.com -- said he hopes the recent lawsuits against Sheriff Stanley Glanz and others "send a wake-up call to the sheriff that the conditions within the jail must change immediately." Elia Patricia Lara-Williams, the widow of Elliott Williams, filed her complaint on Nov. 17, just a few weeks after her 37-year-old husband was found dead in his cell. She claims in the lawsuit that jail personnel and medical staff "were clearly on notice of Mr. Williams's acute suicidal tendencies and serious mental health issues." Another still pending federal suit is connected to the July 2009 death of 32-year-old Charles Jernegan, who died after apparently hanging himself in a cell at Tulsa Jail. The lawsuit alleges Mr. Jernegan's death "was eminently preventable. He fell victim to a culture of delayed and inadequate treatment and indifference toward inmate mental illness" at the jail. Mr. Bullock said the four cases -- and others that are still "in the pipeline" -- all deal with "what we see as deficiencies" within the Tulsa Jail. Yet, Mr. Bullock said, at least at this point, there are no plans to attempt to convert these individual cases into a class-action lawsuit that would seek injunctive relief and subsequent court oversight -- as his most famous cases have featured -- as opposed to damages. Mr. Bullock said "hopefully if they see the financial dangers they will become their own policemen." Attorney Clark Brewster, whose firm is representing Sheriff Glanz in two of the lawsuits and who expects to also defend him in a third one, said the Tulsa Jail is a "first-class operation" that is "actually a national model." Mr. Brewster, who said his firm is representing Mr. Glanz at a "substantially reduced rate," said jail personnel take their responsibilities very seriously. He promised to "aggressively" defend against the claims in the complaints. He said even if the plaintiffs' side decided to shift strategies, the lawsuits that have been filed would be poor candidates for class-action status because they are dissimilar factually and allege "no general wrong against a class" of people. Mr. Brewster's co-counsel Guy Fortney said, "There just isn't any evidence, nor can plaintiffs point to any facts, which would show the sheriff is deliberately indifferent to the needs of those individuals in his custody." Mr. Edwards -- who said the Sheriff's Department has not yet been served in the Lara-Williams case -- said the jail is regularly inspected by outside evaluators and received a positive report from the U.S. Department of Justice in August 2010, showing it to be one of the nation's best in the category of fewest sexual assaults. Still, he said "we constantly look at ways to make adjustments." CITY OF TULSA, OK: EMSA Sued Over Utility Fee Program ----------------------------------------------------- Ziva Branstetter, writing for Tulsa World, reports that two Tulsans have sued EMSA seeking class-action status for members of the agency's utility fee program they claim were fraudulently charged for ambulance service despite paying the fee. The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 24 in Tulsa County District Court by Priscilla Johnson and Evan Hughes. It seeks class-action status for residents enrolled in EMSA's monthly utility fee program "who received services provided by EMSA, and who were subsequently charged for, paid, or were sued by EMSA for fees arising from EMSA services." EMSA CEO Steve Williamson said through a spokeswoman that the agency had not seen the lawsuit. He declined to comment because it is a pending legal matter. EMSA has said its billing practices are "thorough and can be trusted." The utility fee program provides ambulance service for all permanent members of a household enrolled in it. EMSA bills insurance and says it will pay any out-of-pocket costs. Residents in Tulsa pay $3.64 per month on their utility bills while those in Oklahoma City pay $3.65. Residents of Tulsa and Oklahoma City are automatically enrolled in the program unless they opt out. The cities of Bixby, Jenks and Sand Springs along with Oklahoma City suburbs Edmond, Bethany, The Village, Mustang and Warr Acres have similar programs. "EMSA has knowingly and intentionally engaged in the practice of charging Class Members for 'out-of-pocket' expenses . . . and when payment was not received, has proceeded with collection efforts," the lawsuit states. "EMSA's use of process was primarily for the improper purpose of extorting money from people EMSA knew were covered by the TotalCare Program, and thus owed no money to EMSA. . . . EMSA and its collections counsel primarily pursued those people least acquainted with the law and least able to protect themselves from abuses both by EMSA and its collections counsel," the lawsuit alleges. Records show Ms. Johnson was transported by ambulance after a drunken driver struck her car in October 2007, about four months after the EMSA utility program started in Tulsa. EMSA sued Ms. Johnson in 2009 and won a judgment for more than $1,000. Records show she was enrolled in the utility program when it began in 2007 and never opted out of it. Mr. Hughes, 32, was transported twice in 2010 for an illness and lived in a condominium owned by his mother, Mary Pezold. Ms. Pezold said she had not signed a waiver form opting out of the program, as required in multifamily housing units that want to opt out. Ms. Pezold said her son received bills from EMSA for the transports and wrote a letter stating the property was enrolled in the program. She said EMSA turned the account over to a collections agency anyway. The suit claims breach of contract, "unjust enrichment" and violation of plaintiffs' rights to due process under the 14th Amendment. It seeks damages in excess of $75,000. The suit also seeks an order vacating court judgments against class members. It also seeks "disgorgement by EMSA of all profits realized for EMSA's breaches" and an order requiring the agency "to ensure that any person to whom a statement for services is rendered has opted out of EMSA's TotalCare program." Records show EMSA has filed at least 1,300 small-claims lawsuits against residents in Tulsa and Oklahoma City since 2009. CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Order on Arbitration Bid in "Newton" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clearwire Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion to compel arbitration in a purported class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In March 2011, a purported class action was filed against Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges Clearwire's network management and advertising practices constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition under California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers' Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised. Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's network management practices. Plaintiff seeks class certification; declaratory and injunctive relief; unspecified restitution and/or disgorgement of fees paid for Clearwire service; and unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On June 9, 2011, Clearwire filed a motion to compel arbitration. The Company is awaiting the court's decision on the motion. This case is in the early stages of litigation, its outcome is unknown and the possible loss or range of loss cannot reasonably be estimated at this time. CLEARWIRE CORP: Awaits Ruling in "Minnick" Class Suit vs. Unit -------------------------------------------------------------- Clearwire Corporation is awaiting a supreme court decision regarding a question of state law in the class action lawsuit commenced by Chad Minnick against a Company subsidiary, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire U.S. LLC in the Superior Court in King County, Washington, by a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.). The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company disseminated false advertising about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an unlawful early termination fee ("ETF"); and invoked allegedly unconscionable provisions of the Company's Terms of Service to the detriment of subscribers. Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide basis; an order declaring certain provisions of the Company's Terms of Service, including the ETF provision, void and unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the Company from collecting ETFs and further false advertising; restitution of any early termination fees paid by the Company's subscribers; equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint adding seven additional plaintiffs. The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On July 23, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court stayed discovery pending its ruling on the motion, and on February 2, 2010, granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals entered an Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of Washington requesting guidance on a question of Washington state law. The parties have briefed the issue. Once the Washington Supreme Court issues its opinion, the Court of Appeals will continue considering the appeal of the District Court's dismissal of all claims in the First Amended Complaint. The Company says this case is in the early stages of litigation, its outcome is unknown and the possible loss or range of loss cannot reasonably be estimated at this time. CLEARWIRE CORP: Evidentiary Hearing in "Kwan" Suit on June 26 ------------------------------------------------------------- An evidentiary hearing will be held on June 26, 2012, in the class action lawsuit against Clearwire Corporation brought by representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In September 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire in King County Superior Court, brought by representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan. The complaint alleges the Company placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection practices. It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable relief and actual and statutory damages under federal and state law. On October 1, 2009, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The parties stipulated to allow a Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009. The Company then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 22, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims with prejudice and granting plaintiff leave to further amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding additional state law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a purported collection agency, as a co-defendant. On January 27, 2011, the court granted the parties' stipulation allowing plaintiff to file a Fourth Amended Complaint adding two new class representatives. The Company then filed motions to compel the newly-added customer plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims. On January 3, 2012, the Court denied without prejudice the Company's motions to compel arbitration because of factual issues to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing. The Court has set June 26, 2012, as the date for the hearing. The Company says this case is in the early stages of litigation, its outcome is unknown and the possible loss or range of possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. CLEARWIRE CORP: To Renew Arbitration Motion in "Dennings" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Clearwire Corporation said in its Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that it expects to renew its motion to compel arbitration in the purported class action lawsuit filed by Angelo Dennings. In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint generally alleges the Company slows network speeds when network demand is highest and that such network management violates the Company's agreements with subscribers and is contrary to its advertising and marketing claims. Plaintiffs also allege that subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network management, the Company charges an early termination fee or restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable under the circumstances. The claims asserted include breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek class certification; unspecified damages and restitution; a declaratory judgment that Clearwire's ETF and restocking fee are unconscionable under the alleged circumstances; an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from engaging in alleged deceptive marketing and from charging ETFs; interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 13, 2011, the Company filed concurrent motions to compel arbitration and in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In response to Clearwire's motions, Plaintiff abandoned its fraud claim and amended its complaint with fourteen additional plaintiffs in eight separate jurisdictions. Plaintiff further added new claims of violation of Consumer Protection statutes under various state laws. On March 31, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to (1) compel the newly-added plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims, (2) alternatively, to stay this case pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893, and (3) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs did not oppose Clearwire's motion to stay the litigation pending Concepcion, and the parties stipulated to stay the litigation. On April 27, 2011, the US Supreme Court decided Concepcion, and as a result, the Company expects to renew its motion to compel arbitration. The Company says this case is in the early stages of litigation, its outcome is unknown and the possible loss or range of loss cannot reasonably be estimated at this time. FELTEX: More Investors Join Class Action in New Zealand ------------------------------------------------------- Tamlyn Stewart, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that another 300 former Feltex investors have joined 2,500 others in a class action against the former directors, sellers and promoters of the failed carpetmaker. The former shareholders claim the prospectus accompanying the Feltex share offer of just more than NZD250 million in shares in 2004 was misleading and contained untrue statements. Feltex collapsed in late 2006 and shareholders lost their entire investment. Collectively the group is claiming losses and interest since 2004 in respect of 60 million shares purchased at an issue price of NZD$1,70 when Feltex listed. Counsel for the plaintiffs Austin Forbes QC -- aforbes@clear.net.nz -- said some potential claimants who had not yet joined the group action had expressed concerns about personal liability for any adverse costs. But that had been addressed by obtaining an insurance policy through London-based Harbour Litigation Funding and by lodging NZD200,000 in the Christchurch High Court last June as security for costs, he said. The second concern was an assumption by some investors that they were too late to join the action, which was not correct, he said. The High Court ruled last year that Eric Houghton, the shareholder taking the action on behalf of others, had stopped the limitation of time for bringing a claim for all investors he represented by filing the claim and representative application in February 2008, Forbes said. The discovery process was set to begin shortly, however several interlocutory matters are still to be determined by the Court of Appeal. HALLIBURTON CO: Appeals Certification Order in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company has appealed an order certifying a class in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection with the Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against the Company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of the Company's present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the Company in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund). The Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004. In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of the Company's 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the Company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against the Company and its CEO. In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class certification, and the Company's response was filed in November 2007. The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order November 3, 2008, denying the motion for class certification. The Fund appealed the district court's order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. On May 13, 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. In early January 2011, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal. The Court heard oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June 2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification. The Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration of the Company's other arguments for denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the district court, and in January 2012, the court issued an order certifying the class which the Company has appealed. The Company says the case is at an early stage, and it cannot predict the outcome or consequences thereof. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. HALLIBURTON CO: Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions in Macondo MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carl Barbier of the United States Eastern District of Louisiana affirmed a magistrate judge's decision denying a motion for sanctions against Halliburton Company filed by BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP p.l.c. in the multidistrict litigation related to the Macondo well incident, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on April 22, 2010, after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that began on April 20, 2010. The Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo exploration well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (BP Exploration), the lease operator and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. (BP p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their affiliates, collectively, BP). There were eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result of the Macondo well incident. Crude oil escaping from the Macondo well site spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and reached the United States Gulf Coast. The Company performed a variety of services for BP Exploration, including cementing, mud logging, directional drilling, measurement-while- drilling, and rig data acquisition services. Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have been filing lawsuits relating to the Macondo well incident. Generally, those lawsuits allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful death or personal injuries. The Company is named along with other unaffiliated defendants in more than 400 complaints, most of which are alleged class actions, involving pollution damage claims and at least nine personal injury lawsuits involving four decedents and at least 21 allegedly injured persons who were on the drilling rig at the time of the incident. Another six lawsuits naming the Company and others relate to alleged personal injuries sustained by those responding to the explosion and oil spill. Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuits in federal and state courts throughout the United States, including Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Except for certain lawsuits not yet consolidated (including two lawsuits that are proceeding in Louisiana state court, one lawsuit that is proceeding in Louisiana federal court, two lawsuits that are proceeding in Texas state court, two lawsuits that are proceeding in Florida federal court, and four lawsuits in Florida state court for which the Company has not been served), the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered all of the lawsuits against the Company consolidated in the MDL proceeding before Judge Carl Barbier in the United States Eastern District of Louisiana. The pollution complaints generally allege, among other things, negligence and gross negligence, property damages, taking of protected species, and potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution and generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in these pollution cases have brought lawsuit under various legal provisions, including The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), The Clean Water Act (CWA), The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, general maritime law, state common law, and various state environmental and products liability statutes. Furthermore, the pollution complaints include lawsuits brought against the Company by governmental entities, including the State of Alabama, the State of Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish, the City of Greenville, and three Mexican states. Complaints brought against the Company by ten other parishes in Louisiana were dismissed with prejudice, and the dismissal is being appealed by those parishes. The wrongful death and other personal injury complaints generally allege negligence and gross negligence and seek awards of compensatory damages, including unspecified economic damages and punitive damages. The Company has retained counsel and are investigating and evaluating the claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted, and its respective defenses to all of these claims. Judge Barbier is also presiding over a separate proceeding filed by Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation Action). In the Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its liability for claims arising out of the Macondo well incident to the value of the rig and its freight. Although the Limitation Action is not consolidated in the MDL, to this point the judge is effectively treating the two proceedings as associated cases. On February 18, 2011, Transocean tendered the Company, along with all other defendants, into the Limitation Action. As a result of the tender, the Company and all other defendants will be treated as direct defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if the plaintiffs had sued each of the Company and the other defendants directly. In the Limitation Action, the judge intends to determine the allocation of liability among all defendants in the hundreds of lawsuits associated with the Macondo well incident, including those in the MDL proceeding that are pending in his court. Specifically, the judge will determine the liability, limitation, exoneration and fault allocation with regard to all of the defendants in a trial, which is scheduled to occur in three phases, that is set to begin in late February 2012. The three phases of this portion of the trial are scheduled to cover the liabilities associated with the blowout itself, the actions relating to the attempts to control the flow of hydrocarbons from the well, and the efforts to contain and clean-up the oil that was discharged from the Macondo well. The Company does not believe that a single apportionment of liability in the Limitation Action is properly applied, particularly with respect to gross negligence and punitive damages, to the hundreds of lawsuits pending in the MDL proceeding. Damages for the cases tried in the MDL proceeding, including punitive damages, are expected to be tried following the three- phase portion of the trial. Under ordinary MDL procedures, such cases would, unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in the courts from which they were transferred into the MDL. It remains unclear, however, what impact the overlay of the Limitation Action will have on where these matters are tried. Document discovery and depositions among the parties to the MDL are ongoing. It is unclear how the judge will address the U.S. Department of Justice's civil action for alleged violations of the CWA and the OPA. In April and May 2011, certain defendants in the proceedings filed numerous cross claims and third party claims against certain other defendants. BP Exploration and BP America Production Company filed claims against the Company seeking subrogation and contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA, and direct damages, and alleging negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent conduct, and fraudulent concealment. Transocean filed claims against the Company seeking indemnification, and subrogation and contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA and for the total loss of the Deepwater Horizon, and alleging comparative fault and breach of warranty of workmanlike performance. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company LP filed claims against the Company seeking tort indemnity and contribution, and alleging negligence, gross negligence and willful misconduct, and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC (MOEX), who has an approximate 10% interest in the Macondo well, filed a claim against the Company alleging negligence. Cameron International Corporation (Cameron) (the manufacturer and designer of the blowout preventer), M-I Swaco (provider of drilling fluids and services, among other things), Weatherford U.S. L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (together, Weatherford) (providers of casing components, including float equipment and centralizers, and services), and Dril-Quip, Inc. (Dril-Quip) (provider of wellhead systems), each filed claims against the Company seeking indemnification and contribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA in the case of Cameron, and alleging negligence. Additional civil lawsuits may be filed against the Company. In addition to the claims against the Company, generally the defendants in the proceedings filed claims, including for liabilities under the OPA and other similar claims, against the other defendants. BP has since announced that it has settled those claims between it and each of MOEX, Weatherford, Anadarko, and Cameron. In April 2011, the Company filed claims against BP Exploration, BP p.l.c. and BP America Production Company (BP Defendants), M-I Swaco, Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, Weatherford, Dril-Quip, and numerous entities involved in the post-blowout remediation and response efforts, in each case seeking contribution and indemnification and alleging negligence. The Company's claims also alleged gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part of the BP Defendants, Anadarko, and Weatherford. The Company also filed claims against M-I Swaco and Weatherford for contractual indemnification, and against Cameron, Weatherford and Dril-Quip for strict products liability, although the court has since issued orders dismissing all claims asserted against Dril-Quip and Weatherford in the MDL. The Company filed its answer to Transocean's Limitation petition denying Transocean's right to limit its liability, denying all claims and responsibility for the incident, seeking contribution and indemnification, and alleging negligence and gross negligence. Judge Barbier has issued an order, among others, clarifying certain aspects of law applicable to the lawsuits pending in his court. The court ruled that: (1) general maritime law will apply and therefore dismissed all claims brought under state law causes of action; (2) general maritime law claims may be brought directly against defendants who are non-"responsible parties" under the OPA with the exception of pure economic loss claims by plaintiffs other than commercial fishermen; (3) all claims for damages, including pure economic loss claims, may be brought under the OPA directly against responsible parties; and (4) punitive damage claims can be brought against both non-responsible parties under general maritime law and responsible parties under the OPA. With respect to the ruling that claims for damages may be brought under the OPA against responsible parties, the Company has not been named as a responsible party under the OPA, but BP Exploration has filed a claim against the Company for contribution with respect to liabilities incurred by BP Exploration under the OPA. In September 2011, the Company filed claims in Harris County, Texas, against the BP Defendants seeking damages, including lost profits and exemplary damages, and alleging negligence, grossly negligent misrepresentation, defamation, common law libel, slander, and business disparagement. The Company's claims allege that the BP Defendants knew or should have known about an additional hydrocarbon zone in the well that the BP Defendants failed to disclose to the Company prior to it designing the cement program for the Macondo well. The location of the hydrocarbon zones is critical information required prior to performing cementing services and is necessary to achieve desired cement placement. The Company believes that had BP Defendants disclosed the hydrocarbon zone to the Company, the Company would not have proceeded with the cement program unless it was redesigned, which likely would have required a redesign of the production casing. In addition, the Company believes that the BP Defendants withheld this information from the BP Report and from the various investigations. In connection with this, the Company also moved to amend its claims against the BP Defendants in the MDL proceeding to include fraud. The BP Defendants have denied all of the allegations relating to the additional hydrocarbon zone and filed a motion to prevent the Company from adding its fraud claim in the MDL. In October 2011, the Company's motion to add the fraud claim against the BP Defendants in the MDL proceeding was denied. The court's ruling does not, however, prevent the Company from using the underlying evidence in its pending claims against the BP Defendants. In December 2011, BP filed a motion for sanctions against the Company alleging, among other things, that the Company destroyed evidence relating to post-incident testing of the foam cement slurry on the Deepwater Horizon and requesting adverse findings against the Company. A magistrate judge in the MDL proceeding denied BP's motion. BP appealed that ruling, and Judge Barbier affirmed the magistrate judge's decision. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend any litigation, fines, and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident and to vigorously pursue any damages, remedies, or other rights available to the Company as a result of the Macondo well incident. The Company has incurred and expects to continue to incur significant legal fees and costs, some of which it expects to be covered by indemnity or insurance, as a result of the numerous investigations and lawsuits relating to the incident. HALLIBURTON CO: Faces Suits Over Operations in Duncan Facility -------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company is facing lawsuits alleging that operations at its Duncan, Oklahoma facility caused releases of pollutants, including ammonium perchlorate, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Commencing in October 2011, a number of lawsuits were filed against the Company, including a putative class action case in federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma and other lawsuits filed in Oklahoma state courts. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that operations at the Company's Duncan facility caused releases of pollutants, including ammonium perchlorate and, in the case of the federal lawsuit, nuclear or radioactive waste, into the groundwater, and that the Company knew about those releases and did not take corrective actions to address them. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs have suffered from certain health conditions, including hypothyroidism, a condition that has been associated with exposure to perchlorate at sufficiently high doses over time. These cases seek, among other things, damages, including punitive damages, and the establishment of a fund for future medical monitoring. The cases allege, among other things, strict liability, trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence and, in the case of the federal lawsuit, violations of the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, resulting in personal injuries, property damage, and diminution of property value. The lawsuits generally allege that the cleaning of the missile casings at the Duncan facility contaminated the surrounding soils and groundwater, including certain water wells used in a number of residential homes, through the migration of, among other things, ammonium perchlorate. The federal lawsuit also alleges that the Company's processing of radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant over 25 years ago resulted in the release of "nuclear/radioactive" waste into the environment. The Company and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have recently conducted soil and groundwater sampling relating to the allegations that has confirmed that the alleged nuclear or radioactive material is confined to the soil in a discrete area of the onsite operations and is not present in the groundwater onsite or in any areas offsite. The radiological impacts from this discrete area are not believed to present any health risk for offsite exposure. With respect to ammonium perchlorate, the Company has made arrangements to supply affected residents with bottled drinking water and, if needed, with a temporary water supply system, at no cost to the residents. The Company has worked with the City of Duncan and the DEQ to expedite expansion of the city water supply to the relevant areas. The Company says the lawsuits are at an early stage, and additional lawsuits and proceedings may be brought against it. The Company cannot predict their outcome or the consequences thereof. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had accrued $35 million related to its initial estimate of response efforts, third-party property damage, and remediation related to the Duncan, Oklahoma matter. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits and does not believe that these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its liquidity, consolidated results of operations, or consolidated financial condition. HOLIDAY INN: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------- MMD Newswire reports that in a class action suit filed Feb. 23 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Central Islip, Mavis Kemper, a native of Jamaica now living in Cambria Heights, Queens, alleges that the Holiday Inn in Westbury, Long Island in Westbury, didn't pay overtime to any of its employees who worked more than 40 hours a week over the last six years in violation of state and federal labor law. Ms. Kemper, 43, a housekeeper at the Holiday Inn in Westbury, Long Island, from June 2005 until January 2012, worked tirelessly, often working six days per week from about 6:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. for $9 to $11 per hour, cleaning the hotel's 152 rooms, but she was never paid overtime. Reluctantly, she complained, but nothing was done. "I knew that I was working over 40 hours per week and that I was supposed to be getting overtime, but I needed the job," said Ms. Kemper, whose average work week was 45-48 hours. The Fair Labor Standards Act and state law requires businesses to pay overtime at a rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for all hours worked over 40 hours over seven consecutive days. Filed by Leeds Morelli & Brown PC, a law firm in Carle Place, and Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, a law firm in Manhattan, the lawsuit seeks class-action status for roughly 100 current and Westbury Holiday Inn employees. It names Westbury Operating Corp. and Norman Shapiro, president and chief executive of the company, as defendants. "This hotel took advantage of Mavis Kemper and her fellow workers," said Jeffrey Brown, a Leeds Morelli partner. "They were never apprised of their rights to collect overtime, despite consistently working more than 40-plus hours per week." The suit also alleges the hotel didn't provide its employees with paystubs that correctly reflected the hours they worked, the rate of pay, the amount of deductions and other information required by law. According to New York Law workers are entitled to $100 for every paycheck they received that did not have a stub. These provisions are part of the state's almost year-old Wage Theft Prevention Act -- aimed at curbing wage violations. "Situations such as this one involving Mavis Kemper are becoming all too common across the business landscape and we hope that by filing this suit, workers will realize that they have rights," said Len Leeds, also a partner at Leeds, Morelli & Brown. "It's unfortunate in today's economic times that employees not only are forced to work long hours, must find it necessary to file suit to receive the wages for the hours that they worked," said Lloyd Ambinder of Virginia & Ambinder. "I even complained to a manager, but they didn't do anything about it," according to Ms. Kemper. The case is Mavis Kemper v. Westbury Operating Corp. d/b/a Holiday Inn Westbury-Long Island, 12-cv-0895, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Suit in Calif. Super. Court Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation and its subsidiaries have been named as a defendant in civil class action antitrust lawsuits alleging that between 1999 and 2004 the Company conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and related systems ("polyether polyol products") sold in the U.S. in violation of the federal Sherman Act. These cases are consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. A purported class action case filed February 15, 2002, by purchasers in California of products containing rubber and urethane chemicals and pending in Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, is stayed pending resolution of the Kansas multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs in this matter make similar claims against the defendants as the class plaintiffs in the Kansas multidistrict litigation. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company says in all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against it, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees. The Company asserts that it is not aware of any illegal conduct by the Company or any of its employees. Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it. HUNTSMAN CORP: Cert. Hearing in Polyether Polyol Suits on April 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Two similar civil antitrust class action cases against Huntsman Corporation were filed May 5 and 17, 2006, in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada, and Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, on behalf of purported classes of Canadian direct and indirect purchasers of MDI, TDI and polyether polyols. The class certification hearing is scheduled for April 2, 2012. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company says in all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against it, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees. The Company asserts that it is not aware of any illegal conduct by the Company or any of its employees. Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it. HUNTSMAN CORP: Certification Hearing in Maryland Suit on Aug. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class certification hearing is scheduled for August 16, 2012, in the consolidated antitrust lawsuit pending in Maryland, according to Huntsman Corporation's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company has been named as a defendant in two purported class action civil antitrust lawsuits alleging that it and its co- defendants and other co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002, and the present. The cases were filed on February 9 and 12, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and a consolidated complaint was filed on April 12, 2010. The other defendants named in this matter are E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Kronos Worldwide Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a Cristal). A class certification hearing is scheduled for August 16, 2012, and trial is set to begin September 9, 2013. Discovery is ongoing. The Company says in all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against it, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees. The Company asserts that it is not aware of any illegal conduct by the Company or any of its employees. Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it. HUNTSMAN CORP: Dismissed From Direct Cases Over Polyether Polyol ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation was dismissed in December 2011 from the antitrust cases brought by direct purchasers of polyether polyol products that opted out of the class certified in the Kansas multidistrict litigation, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company was named as a defendant in civil class action antitrust lawsuits alleging that between 1999 and 2004, the Company conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and related systems ("polyether polyol products") sold in the U.S. in violation of the federal Sherman Act. These cases are consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols" cases in multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. In addition, the Company and the other Polyether Polyol defendants were named as defendants in three civil antitrust lawsuits brought by certain direct purchasers of polyether polyol products that opted out of the class certified in the Kansas multidistrict litigation. The relevant time frame for these cases is 1994 to 2004 and they are referred to as the "direct action cases." The class action and the direct action cases were consolidated in the Kansas court for the purposes of discovery and other pretrial matters. In the second quarter of 2011, the Company settled the class action and was dismissed as a defendant. On December 29, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the direct action plaintiffs for an amount immaterial to its financial statements and was dismissed from those cases on December 30, 2011. The Company says in all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against it, the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees. The Company asserts that it is not aware of any illegal conduct by the Company or any of its employees. Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts material to it. INYX INC: May 4 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Brower Piven on Feb. 27 issued a statement regarding the INYX, Inc. Class Action Settlement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Civil Action No. 08-cv-06857-PKC THE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FUNDS, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. INYX INC., JACK KACHKAR, STEVEN HANDLEY, RIMA GOLDSHMIDT, JAY M. GREEN and BERKOVITS & COMPANY, LLP, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION All Persons and Entities Who Purchased Inyx, Inc. Common Stock Between April 1, 2005 and July 2, 2007, Inclusive. This Summary Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), dated February 9, 2012. The purpose of this Summary Notice is to inform you of the proposed settlement of the above- entitled class action (the "Action") against defendants Inyx, Inc., Jack Kachkar, Rima Goldshmidt, and Jay M. Green. A Settlement Hearing will be held before the Hon. P. Kevin Castel, United States District Judge, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007, at 11:30 a.m. on May 4, 2012 in order: (1) to determine whether the Settlement consisting of no less than $600,000.00 (US) and no more than $1,100,000 (US) in cash should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and the proposed Judgment entered; (2) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the settlement is fair and reasonable, and should be approved by the Court; (3) to determine whether any applications for attorneys' fees not to exceed 35% of the settlement Fund and reimbursement of litigation expenses not to exceed $110,000.00 (US) to Class Counsel should be approved; and (5) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. If you purchased the common stock of Inyx, Inc. between April 1, 2005 and July 2, 2007, inclusive, and are not otherwise excluded from the Class, you are a Class Member. Class Members will be bound by the final Judgment of the Court. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than June 8, 2012, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you are a Class Member and need a Proof of Claim, copies may be obtained by telephoning the Claims Administrator at (800) 231-1815 or by downloading the form on the Internet at http://www.gcginc.com If you do not wish to be included in the Class and you do not wish to participate in the proposed Settlement, you may request to be excluded in the manner set forth in the full Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), no later than April 9, 2012. If you are a Class Member, and you do not request exclusion from the Class, you may make written objection(s) to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation or Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses by following the procedures set forth in the Notice. If you make a written objection, you also may appear at the Settlement Hearing. You must file and serve your written objection, in the manner specifically set forth in the Notice, no later than April 9, 2012. This is only a summary notice. The full Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action may be accessed at: http://www.gcginc.com You are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice, which includes, among other things, a description of: (1) the litigation in this Action prior to the Settlement; (2) the full terms of the proposed Settlement; (3) the Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement; (4) the rights of Class Members, including the mandatory procedures to exclude oneself from the Class or appear at the Settlement Hearing and/or object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses; and (5) the scope of the release of claims against Defendants. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: February 9, 2012 CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan stiffed case managers for overtime, a class action claims in Alameda County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Holt, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al., Case No. RG12618562 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/27/KaiserCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. R. Craig Clark, Esq. Steven T. Wlodek, Esq. CLARK & MARKHAM LLP 600 B Street, Suite 2130 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-1321 E-mail: dmarkham@clarkmarkham.com cclark@clarkmarkham.com KELLY SERVICES: Awaits Final Okay of "Fuller" Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Services, Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a settlement of a class action lawsuit captioned Fuller v. Kelly Services, Inc. and Kelly Home Care Services, Inc., according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 1, 2012. The lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, which involves a claim for monetary damages by current and former temporary employees in the state of California. The claims are related to alleged misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and not entitled to overtime compensation under state law and alleged technical violations of a state law governing the content of employee pay stubs. A $1.2 million after tax charge relating to the settlement was recognized in discontinued operations during the second quarter 2011. Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- provides workforce solutions. Kelly(R) offers a comprehensive array of outsourcing and consulting services as well as world-class staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire and direct-hire basis. Serving clients around the globe, Kelly provides employment to more than 530,000 employees annually. KELLY SERVICES: Paid 1.9 Mil. Settlement Payment in 4Q of 2011 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Services, Inc., disclosed in its February 16, 2012, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 1, 2012, that during the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company paid $1.9 million to settle a previous legal matter, Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc., which had been pending in the U.S. District Court Southern District of California. The Company established a reserve for this case in 2010. Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- provides workforce solutions. Kelly(R) offers a comprehensive array of outsourcing and consulting services as well as world-class staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire and direct-hire basis. Serving clients around the globe, Kelly provides employment to more than 530,000 employees annually. KENNETH COLE: Being Sold for Too Little, New York Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Astor BK Realty Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kenneth D. Cole, Paul Blum, Michael Blitzer, Robert Grayson, Denis Kelly, Philip Peller, and Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., Case No. 650521/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 24, 2012) is a class action that arised out of the proposed acquisition of KCP by its founder, chairman of the Board, and chief creative officer, Kenneth D. Cole. On February 23, 2012, Mr. Cole submitted a going-private proposal to the Board pursuant to which he is seeking to acquire all of the remaining outstanding shares of KCP that he does not already own for $15.00 per share, for a total equity value of approximately $280 million, the Plaintiff relates. However, the Plaintiff argues, the $15.00 per share represents wholly inadequate consideration in light of the Company's intrinsic value and future prospects. The Plaintiff is a shareholder of KCP. KCP, a New York corporation, designs, sources, and markets a broad range of footwear, handbags, apparel and accessories under the brand names Kenneth Cole New York, Kenneth Cole Reaction, and Unlisted, as well as footwear under the proprietary trademark Gentle Souls. Mr. Cole is the Company's controlling stockholder, owning approximately 47% of KCP's common stock, representing approximately 89% of the voting power of the Company. The other Individual Defendants are officers and directors of KCP. A copy of the Complaint in Astor BK Realty Trust v. Kenneth D. Cole, et al., Index No. 650521/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/27/KCole.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Joseph Levi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com shopkins@zlk.com MASTERCARD INC: "Attridge" Suit Remanded to Trial Court in Jan. --------------------------------------------------------------- In January 2012, an appellate court reversed a trial court's settlement approval of the "Attridge" antitrust action and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings, according to MasterCard Incorporated's February 16, 2012, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In October 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a lawsuit against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that both MasterCard's and Visa's governance structure and policies violated U.S. federal antitrust laws. In April 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (the "Attridge action"). The claims in this action seek to piggyback on the portion of the DOJ antitrust litigation with regard to the District Court's findings concerning MasterCard's CPP and Visa's related bylaw. MasterCard and Visa moved to dismiss the complaint and the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claims but denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair competition claims. MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint in June 2006 and the parties have proceeded with discovery. In September 2009, MasterCard executed a settlement agreement that is subject to court approval in the California consumer litigations. The agreement includes a release that the parties believe encompasses the claims asserted in the Attridge action. In August 2010, the Court in the California consumer actions executed an order granting final approval to the settlement. The plaintiff from the Attridge action and three other objectors filed appeals of the settlement approval order. In January 2012, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's settlement approval and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. The Company says at this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or estimate the liability related to, the Attridge action and no incremental provision for losses has been provided in connection with it. MASTERCARD INC: Consumer Suits Pending in New Mexico and Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Incorporated continues to face consumer lawsuits pending in New Mexico and California, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Commencing in October 1996, several class action lawsuits were brought by a number of U.S. merchants against MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa U.S.A., Inc. challenging certain aspects of the payment card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law. Those lawsuits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a similar Visa rule), which required merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard card, constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard and Visa unlawfully tied acceptance of debit cards to acceptance of credit cards. In June 2003, MasterCard International signed a settlement agreement to settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this matter, which the Court approved in December 2003. In January 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the District Court's approval of the settlement agreement thus making it final. In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought in nineteen different states and the District of Columbia alleging state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of putative classes of consumers. The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold. MasterCard has been successful in dismissing cases in seventeen of the jurisdictions as courts have granted MasterCard's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaints. However, there are outstanding cases in New Mexico and California. In June 2010, the court issued an order granting MasterCard's motion to dismiss the complaint in the New Mexico action. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of that decision and oral argument on the appeal was held in February 2012. With respect to the California state actions, in September 2009, the parties to the California state court actions executed a settlement agreement which required a payment by MasterCard of $6 million, subject to approval by the California state court. In August 2010, the court executed an order granting final approval of the settlement, subsequent to which MasterCard made the payment required by the settlement agreement. The plaintiff from the Attridge action and three other objectors filed appeals of the settlement approval order. In January 2012, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's settlement approval and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or, except as indicated in the California consumer action, estimate the liability related to, the remaining consumer cases and no provision for losses has been provided in connection with them. The consumer class actions are not covered by the terms of the settlement agreement in the U.S. merchant lawsuit. MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Sept. 12 Trial in Interchange Fee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Incorporated awaits the September 12, 2012 trial date for the class action litigation over interchange fees, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In June 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of member banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade. In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately fifty similar complaints (the majority of which are styled as class actions, although a few complaints are on behalf of individual merchant plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut. In October 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720. In April 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of the individual merchants are generally brought under both Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry. Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of the following claims: (1) that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange fees (for both credit and off-line debit transactions) violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge rule and purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) that MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and (4) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and bundled transaction fees. In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law, some of these complaints contain certain unfair competition law claims under state law based upon the same conduct. These interchange-related litigations seek treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. In June 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were brought in the individual merchant complaints. In January 2008, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-2004 damage claims. In May 2008, the court denied MasterCard's motion to dismiss the Section 2 monopolization claims. Fact discovery has been proceeding and was generally completed by November 2008. Briefs have been submitted on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs' class certification motion in November 2009. The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion. In January 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The allegations and claims in this complaint generally mirror those in the first amended class action complaint although plaintiffs have added additional claims brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act against MasterCard, Visa and a number of banks alleging, among other things, that the networks and banks have continued to fix interchange fees following each network's initial public offering. In March 2009, MasterCard and the other defendants in the action filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint in its entirety, or alternatively, to narrow the claims in the complaint. The parties have fully briefed the motion and the court heard oral argument on the motion in November 2009. The parties are awaiting decisions on the motions. In July 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2) violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly constitute an unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3) constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are allegedly attempting to release without adequate consideration from the member banks MasterCard's right to assess the member banks for MasterCard's litigation liabilities in these interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust litigations pending against it. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In September 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims contained in the supplemental complaint. In November 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety with leave to file an amended complaint. In January 2009, the class plaintiffs repled their complaint directed at MasterCard's IPO by filing a First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint. The causes of action in the complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original IPO-related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to expand their factual allegations based upon discovery that has been garnered in the case. The class plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. In March 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its entirety. The parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and the court heard oral argument on the motion in November 2009. The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion. In July 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs' theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of billions of dollars. The defendants served their expert reports in December 2009 rebutting the plaintiffs' assertions both with respect to liability and damages. In February 2011, both the defendants and the plaintiffs served a number of dispositive motions seeking summary judgment on all or portions of the claims in the complaints. The parties have fully briefed on the motions and oral argument on the motions occurred on November 2, 2011. The parties are awaiting decision on the motions. The court has scheduled a trial date of September 12, 2012. The trial date is subject to further delay based upon the timing of any rulings on the outstanding motions by the parties and any objections or appeals of those decisions along with other factors. On February 7, 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International Incorporated entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association and a number of member banks; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing agreement with a number of member banks. The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the member banks may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the interchange merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the member banks and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the member banks with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement. MasterCard and the other defendants have been participating in separate court-recommended mediation sessions with the individual merchant plaintiffs and the class plaintiffs. Based on progress to date in the mediation, MasterCard recorded a $770 million pre-tax charge, or $495 million on an after-tax basis, in the fourth quarter of 2011. This charge represents MasterCard's estimate for the financial portion of a settlement in these cases. The charge does not represent an estimate of a loss if the parties to the matter litigate, in which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability, if any. MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change depending on progress in settlement negotiations, or if the case is not settled, if the matter is litigated. MASTERCARD INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over ATM Rule Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Incorporated asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss lawsuits over ATM rule surcharges for failure to state a claim, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On October 12, 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a proposed class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both MasterCard and Visa. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge charged for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of lawsuit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services. The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM operators' complaint, although this complaint seeks damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of lawsuit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars. In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. MasterCard has moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. At this time, and at this early stage of the cases, the Company says it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or, estimate the liability related to, the cases and no provision for losses has been provided in connection with them. MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends Interchange Fee Suits in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- In December 2010, the Canadian Competition Bureau (the "CCB") filed an application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal to strike down certain MasterCard Incorporated rules related to interchange fees, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge" rules. Also in December 2010, MasterCard learned that a purported class action lawsuit had been commenced against it in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants and consumers. That lawsuit essentially repeats the allegations and arguments of the CCB application to the Canadian Competition Tribunal and seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In March 2011, a second purported class action lawsuit was commenced in British Columbia against MasterCard, Visa and a number of large Canadian banks, and in May 2011 a third purported class action lawsuit was commenced in Ontario against the same defendants. These lawsuits allege that MasterCard, Visa and the banks have engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to increase or maintain the fees paid by merchants on credit card transactions and that MasterCard's and Visa's rules force merchants to accept all MasterCard and Visa credit cards and prevent merchants from charging more for payments with MasterCard and Visa premium cards. The second lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the third lawsuit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The second and third lawsuits also seek punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and legal costs. If the CCB's challenges and/or the class action lawsuits were ultimately successful, the Company says such negative decisions could have a significant adverse impact on the revenues of MasterCard's Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall business in Canada and, in the case of the private lawsuits, could result in substantial damage awards. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. MASTERCARD INC: Continues to File Conversion Fee Suit Dismissals ---------------------------------------------------------------- MasterCard Incorporated's operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated, together with Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp., are defendants in a state court lawsuit in California. The lawsuit alleges that MasterCard and Visa wrongfully imposed an asserted one percent currency conversion "fee" on every credit card transaction by U.S. MasterCard and Visa cardholders involving the purchase of goods or services in a foreign country, and that such alleged "fee" is unlawful. This action, titled Schwartz v. Visa Int'l Corp., et al. (the "Schwartz action"), was brought in the Superior Court of California in February 2000, purportedly on behalf of the general public. MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are also defendants in a number of federal putative class actions that allege, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion "fee." Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL No. 1409 (the "MDL action") before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In July 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related matters, as well as the Schwartz matter. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard paid approximately $72 million to be used for the defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL action and approximately $13 million to settle the Schwartz matter. In November 2009, Judge Pauley signed a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal granting final approval to the settlement agreements. A number of appeals of the final settlement approval were filed. All the appeals of the approval have now been withdrawn and the settlement is now final. With regard to other state court currency conversion actions, MasterCard has reached agreements with the plaintiffs for a total of approximately $4 million, which has been accrued. Settlement agreements have been executed with plaintiffs in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Arizona, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Missouri actions. Now that all appeals of the final approval of the MDL settlement action are extinguished, MasterCard and the plaintiffs in the state actions have or are in the process of filing dismissals of the actions with prejudice. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. MERRILL LYNCH: Black Brokers Win Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that Merrill Lynch financial advisors who claim they were denied pay and promotions because they are black can sue the investment firm as a class, a decision that could cost the investment firm dearly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled. The 700-person class, led by Nashville financial advisor George McReynolds, alleged that Merrill Lynch's company policies result in unintentional discrimination, known as disparate effect, against black bankers. Specifically, the class challenged the company's "teaming" and "account distribution" policies under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. At each Merrill Lynch branch, brokers are encouraged to divide themselves into client-sharing teams. "The aim in forming or joining a team is to gain access to additional clients, or if one is already rich in clients to share some of them with brokers who have complementary skills that will secure the clients' loyalty and maybe persuade them to invest more with Merrill Lynch," the 7th Circuit summarized. While not all brokers join teams, teaming up allegedly presents substantial benefits. But white brokers tend to form all-white teams, according to the complaint. Though brokers probably focus simply on the bottom line and "would doubtless ask a superstar broker to join their team regardless of his or her race . . . there is bound to be uncertainty about who will be effective in bringing and keeping shared clients; and when there is uncertainty people tend to base decisions on emotions and preconceptions, for want of objective criteria," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the three-judge panel. The class alleged that discrimination also occurs in account distribution, the process by which Merrill Lynch assigns accounts after the departure of a broker. These assignments consider the past financial success of the competing brokers and the number and type of the client's investments. But black advisors say that consideration of brokers' track records favors those who are able to join successful teams, creating a "vicious cycle" of low performance. "Team participation and account distribution can affect a brokers' performance evaluation, which under company policy influences the broker's pay and promotion," Judge Posner summarized. "The plaintiffs argue that these company-wide policies exacerbate racial discrimination by brokers." Though U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman denied class certification, the class filed a renewed motion after the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores v Dukes. In the Wal-Mart case, the court decertified a class of 1.6 million women who claimed sex discrimination. Mr. McReynolds claimed that the justices' definition of a "uniform company policy" warrants certification of his class. Judge Gettleman again denied the motion, but indicated in his notes that the 7th Circuit should review the decision. The three-judge appellate panel unanimously reversed on Feb. 24. "We have trouble seeing the downside of the limited class action treatment that we think would be appropriate in this case," Judge Posner wrote. "A denial of class certification often dooms the suit -- the class members' claims may be too slight to justify the expense of individual suits," the decision states. "Because class actions are cumbersome and protracted, an early appellate decision on whether a suit can be maintained as a class action can speed the way to termination of the litigation by abandonment, summary judgment, or settlement," Judge Posner added. The plaintiffs presented evidence black Merrill Lynch brokers earn less on average than their white counterparts. Because most Merrill Lynch brokers earn at least $100,000 per year, any award of backpay could place a substantial financial burden on the investment firm. A copy of the decision in McReynolds, et al. v. Merrill Lynch, et al., No. 11-3639 (7th Cir.), is available at: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/FY17VJAL.pdf MONSANTO: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a "comprehensive" settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit filed against Monsanto and related companies over its old plant in Nitro was given preliminary approval on Feb. 24 by a West Virginia circuit court judge. Judge Derek Swope approved an agreement that will establish a 30- year medical monitoring program at a local hospital for those who lived, worked or went to school in the Nitro area during the period of time covered by the lawsuit. A primary fund of $21 million will pay for the testing of those eligible class members, and up to $63 million in additional funding will be available over the 30-year life of the program. Also, the agreement will set aside up to $9 million to professionally clean homes in the Nitro area. About 4,500 homes are located in the areas where individual remediation "may be desirable," according to the company. Monsanto also agreed to pay for court-approved legal fees and litigation costs incurred by the class members over the last seven years. The settlement resolves all claims in pending litigation, as well as class actions, filed in West Virginia. "These settlements ensure that both individual and community concerns are addressed, and services are made available for the people of Nitro," Scott Partridge, vice president of Monsanto, said in a statement on Feb. 24. "We are pleased to resolve this matter and end any concerns about historic operations at the Nitro plant." The residents' lawyer, Stuart Calwell, said he was pleased with the agreement. "The settlements provide needed medical benefits and remediation services to the people of Nitro and broader community. The principal goal of the litigation was to provide long-term medical monitoring and to provide professional cleaning of individual homes," he said in a statement. The trial, held in Putnam County Circuit Court, began on Jan. 3 after attorneys for Monsanto and the residents could not come to a settlement. According to complaints filed in the Putnam court in October 2007, during the years that Monsanto was operating its trichlorophenol plant, it adopted an unlawful practice of disposing of dioxin waste materials by a continuous process of open "pit" burning. The dioxin in question -- known as 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacidic acid or 2,4,5-T -- was used by the military as part of the herbicide "Agent Orange" in Vietnam. Monsanto, which has denied the burning practice, instead described it as an "incineration" process when questioned by regulatory authorities. The residents' complaints called the process "dusty" and said the company's dust control was "haphazard," causing more than 3,000 pounds of the dioxin to be released into the Nitro air. Sampling showed levels of 2,200 parts per trillion, while U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards require a level less than 4 parts per trillion. The Nitro plant was operated by Monsanto until 1995 when the plant merged with Akzo Nobel, a Dutch company, and began operating as Flexsys America Inc. In 1997, Monsanto renamed a subsidiary as Solutia Inc. and the Nitro plant was distributed to Solutia. The plant eventually closed in 2004. In August, West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman appointed Swope, of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, to preside in the lawsuit. Swope, a member of the Mass Litigation Panel, is sitting in for Twenty-Ninth Judicial Circuit Judge O.C. Spaulding, who stepped aside from the case due to illness. Judge Spaulding announced that he has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, a degenerative motor neuron disease. Judge Swope had postponed the trial, which was supposed to begin on Sept. 6. According to Monsanto, the class action resolutions will now be fully reviewed by Judge Swope to "ensure the fairness" of the class action settlement agreement. Before the agreement is finalized, class members must be notified of the settlement and given a chance to object. The Charleston Gazette reported Feb. 24 that a "fairness" hearing has been set for June 18. Monsanto noted on Feb. 24 that, for fiscal year 2012, the settlement will not affect ongoing earnings per share, but the one-time expense will reduce as-reported earnings per share by about five cents. MONSANTO: Judge Dismisses Farmers' Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Julia Moskin, writing for The New York Times, reports that a federal class-action lawsuit brought last year by a consortium of farmers against the agricultural and chemical company Monsanto was dismissed on Feb. 27 by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of Federal District Court. The plaintiffs, none of whom use Monsanto's products, are seeking to have the company's agricultural patents invalidated. They said they were concerned that Monsanto would sue them if the company's patented strains of soybeans, corn or alfalfa, which make up a majority of American crops, appeared in their fields. In January, oral arguments in the case brought hundreds of farmers and advocates to Lower Manhattan to protest the power wielded by Monsanto in American agriculture. In the Feb. 27 ruling, the judge said the farmers consortium, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, had no standing to bring such a suit, had not been harmed by the company, and had engaged in "a transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists." The lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Daniel B. Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation, said the decision "to deny farmers the right to seek legal protection from one of the world's foremost patent bullies is gravely disappointing." But Monsanto's general counsel, David F. Snively, called it "a win for all farmers as it underscores that agricultural practices such as ag biotechnology, organic and conventional systems do and will continue to effectively coexist in the agricultural marketplace." Mr. Ravicher said the plaintiffs would probably take the case to the Federal Court of Appeals. OGE ENERGY: "Buser" Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in October 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of OGE Energy Corp. commenced by Farris Buser in Oklahoma was dismissed in October 2011, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On July 22, 2005, OGE Enogex Holdings, LLC ("Enogex"), a wholly- owned subsidiary of OGE Energy, along with certain other unaffiliated co-defendants was served with a purported class action which had been filed on February 7, 2005, by Farris Buser and other named plaintiffs in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma. The plaintiffs own royalty interests in certain oil and gas producing properties and alleged they have been under- compensated by the named defendants, including Enogex and its subsidiaries, relating to the sale of liquid hydrocarbons recovered during the transportation of natural gas from the plaintiffs' wells. The plaintiffs asserted breach of contract, implied covenants, obligation, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conspiracy and fraud causes of action and claim actual damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs, and punitive damages. Enogex and its subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on November 18, 2005, subject to the plaintiffs' right to conduct discovery and the possible re-filing of their allegations in the petition against the Enogex companies. On September 19, 2005, the co-defendants, BP America, Inc. and BP America Production Company filed a cross claim against Enogex Products LLC ("Products"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enogex LLC, seeking indemnification and/or contribution from Products based upon the 1997 sale of a third-party interest in one of Products natural gas processing plants. On May 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition against Enogex and its subsidiaries. Enogex and its subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on August 2, 2006. The hearing on the dismissal motion was held on November 20, 2006, and the court denied Enogex's motion. Enogex filed an answer to the amended petition and BP America, Inc. and BP America Production Company's cross claim on January 16, 2007. On October 14, 2011, this case was dismissed without prejudice. While this lawsuit could be re-filed, Enogex considers the claims and cross claim associated with this lawsuit to be without merit, based upon Enogex's investigation to date. Enogex now considers this case closed. OGE ENERGY: "Price I" Suit Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. involving OGE Energy Corp.'s subsidiaries were granted additional time to perform discovery prior to the consideration of motions for summary judgment, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy were served with a class action petition filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, by Quinque Operating Company and other named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on non-Federal lands. The lawsuit is captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. ("Price I"). On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order denying class certification. On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and the court granted the motion on July 28, 2003. In its amended petition, OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary entities remained as defendants. The plaintiffs' amended petition seeks class certification and alleges that 60 defendants, including two of OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the volume of natural gas. The amended petition asserts theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment. In their briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages. On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class certification. On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's denial of class certification. On March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing. On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and its subsidiary, OGE Energy Resources LLC ("OER") filed motions for summary judgment. On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs' claims regarding civil conspiracy. In an order dated January 23, 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims. OGE Energy says it intends to vigorously defend this action. At this time, OGE Energy does not believe the outcome will have a material impact on its financial position. OGE ENERGY: "Price II" Suit Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. ("Price II") were granted additional time to perform discovery prior to the consideration of motions for summary judgment, according to OGE Energy Corp.'s February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs, which are the same as those in the amended petition in Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. ("Price I") filed a new class action petition in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, naming the same defendants and asserting substantially identical legal and/or equitable theories as in the amended petition of the Price I case. The lawsuit is captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. ("Price II"). Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company ("OG&E") and Enogex Inc. were not named in this case, but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary entities were named in this case. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants mismeasured the British thermal unit content of natural gas obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs. In their briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages. On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class certification. On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's denial of class certification. On March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing. On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and OGE Energy Resources LLC ("OER") filed motions for summary judgment. On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs' claims regarding civil conspiracy. In an order dated January 23, 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims. OGE Energy says it intends to vigorously defend this action. At this time, OGE Energy does not believe the outcome will have a material impact on its financial position. OKLAHOMA GAS: "Price I" Plaintiffs Given More Discovery Time ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit involving Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company were granted additional time to perform discovery prior to the consideration of motions for summary judgment, according to its February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of the Company's parent, OGE Energy Corp., were served with a class action petition filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, by Quinque Operating Company and other named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on non-Federal lands. The lawsuit is captioned Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al. ("Price I"). On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order denying class certification. On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now Will Price, Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and the court granted the motion on July 28, 2003. In its amended petition, OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary entities remained as defendants. The plaintiffs' amended petition seeks class certification and alleges that 60 defendants, including two of OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the volume of natural gas. The amended petition asserts theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment. In their briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages. On September 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class certification. On October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the court's denial of class certification. On March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing. On July 20, 2011, Enogex LLC and its subsidiary, OGE Energy Resources LLC ("OER") filed motions for summary judgment. On January 25, 2012, the court denied portions of the motions for summary judgment related to the legal issue of the plaintiffs' claims regarding civil conspiracy. In an order dated January 23, 2012, the court granted the plaintiffs additional time to perform discovery prior to the consideration of the motions for summary judgment as they relate to the plaintiffs' other claims. OGE Energy says it intends to vigorously defend this action. At this time, OGE Energy does not believe the outcome will have a material impact on its financial position. PG&E CORP: Trial in San Bruno Accident Suits to Start on July 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A trial date of July 23, 2012, has been set for the first of numerous cases arising from an accident in San Bruno, California, according to PG&E Corporation's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company conducts its business principally through Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("Utility"), a public utility operating in northern and central California. The Utility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). On September 9, 2010, an underground 30-inch natural gas transmission pipeline (Line 132) owned and operated by the Utility, ruptured in a residential area located in the City of San Bruno, California ("San Bruno accident"). The ensuing explosion and fire resulted in the deaths of eight people, numerous personal injuries, and extensive property damage. Approximately 100 lawsuits involving third-party claims for personal injury and property damage, including two class action lawsuits, have been filed against PG&E Corporation and the Utility in connection with the San Bruno accident on behalf of approximately 370 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek compensation for personal injury and property damage, and other relief, including punitive damages. The Utility stated publicly that it is liable for the San Bruno accident and will take financial responsibility to compensate all of the victims for the injuries they suffered as a result of the accident. These cases have been coordinated and assigned to one judge in the San Mateo County Superior Court and a trial date of July 23, 2012, has been set for the first of these cases. During the case management conference on January 19, 2012, the court addressed, among other topics, mandatory settlement conferences. The court expressed its preference that generally households suffering a death or serious injury should proceed first. The Company says it is likely the mandatory settlement conferences will start in late March or early April 2012. The next case management conference is scheduled for March 2, 2012. PPG INDUSTRIES: Briefing in TOI MDL to Be Completed in Late 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briefing with respect to class certification in the antitrust multidistrict litigation against a subsidiary of PPG Industries, Inc., is expected to be completed in late 2012, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In 2010, Transitions Optical, Inc. ("TOI"), a consolidated subsidiary of the Company, entered into a settlement agreement, without admitting liability, with the Federal Trade Commission, which had alleged that TOI violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Following the announcement of the settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, 30 private putative class cases were filed against TOI, alleging that it has monopolized and/or conspired to monopolize the market for photochromic lenses. All of the federal actions have been transferred and centralized in the Middle District of Florida (the "MDL Action"). Amended complaints in the MDL Action were filed in November and December 2010. In late 2011, the court ruled on TOI's motion to dismiss and allowed the plaintiffs to file new or further amended complaints. Plaintiffs in the MDL Action include Insight Equity A.P. X, LP, d/b/a Vision-Ease Lens Worldwide, Inc., which has sued on its own behalf, and putative classes of "direct purchasers," including laboratories and retailers (the "Lab/Retailer Plaintiffs"), and "indirect purchasers," consisting of end-user consumers. Plaintiffs in the MDL Action generally allege that TOI's exclusive dealing arrangements resulted in higher prices and seek lost profits and damages determined by the price premium attributable to wrongful exclusive deals. The damages sought are subject to trebling. The Lab/Retailer Plaintiffs also allege that TOI and certain affiliates of Essilor International SA conspired with respect to the wrongful exclusive dealing arrangements. Briefing with respect to class certification is expected to be completed in late 2012. TOI believes it has meritorious defenses and continues to defend all of the actions vigorously. PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Funds Distribution to Occur in 2012 -------------------------------------------------------------- Distribution of the funds with respect to the settlement of antitrust lawsuits against PPG Industries, Inc. is expected to occur in 2012, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 in different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass producers as defendants in purported antitrust class actions. The complaints alleged that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and conditions of sale of flat glass in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws. In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into one federal court class action in Pittsburgh, Pa. In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from future violations of the federal antitrust laws, unspecified compensatory damages, including treble damages, and the recovery of their litigation costs. Many allegations in the complaints were similar to those raised in proceedings by the European Commission in which fines were levied against other flat glass producers arising out of alleged antitrust violations. PPG is not involved in any of the proceedings in Europe. PPG divested its European flat glass business in 1998. A complaint containing allegations substantially similar to the U.S. litigation and seeking compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by the court was filed in the Superior Court in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, in August 2008 regarding the sale of flat glass in Canada. In the third quarter of 2010, the other defendants in these cases agreed to settlements. Although PPG is aware of no wrongdoing or conduct on its part in the operation of its flat glass business that violated any antitrust laws, in order to avoid the ongoing expense of this protracted case, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with complex litigation involving jury trials, in the third quarter of 2010 PPG reached an agreement in principle to resolve these flat glass antitrust matters for approximately $6 million. Final settlement agreements were executed in the fourth quarter of 2010. The court has approved the settlements and distribution of the funds is expected to occur in 2012. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Limit NJLAD Application Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on its motion seeking to limit the application of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to only those members of the purported class, who worked in New Jersey, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages. The defendants removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported class who worked in New Jersey. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Awaits Order on NID-Related Suit Dismissal Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit over NID's test kits, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In April 2010, a putative class action was filed against the Company and NID, a test kit manufacturing subsidiary which was closed in 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of entities that allegedly purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits. The complaint alleges that certain of NID's test kits were defective and that defendants, among other things, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws. The complaint alleges an unspecified amount of damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Securities Suit vs. Celera Pending in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's subsidiary continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Celera Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial restatement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were made. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Employees Class Suit in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey by certain employees, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed by the defendants from February 17, 2010, to the present. The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages. REVLON INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over 2009 Exchange Offer -------------------------------------------------------------- Revlon, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits over its 2009 voluntary exchange offer, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to stockholders who elected to exchange shares (other than MacAndrews & Forbes) 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock tendered in the Exchange Offer (the "Exchange Offer"). On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009, and May 12, 2009, respectively, four purported class actions were filed by each of Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T. Walter Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Chancery Court"). On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was filed by Stanley E. Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. Each such lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and challenged a merger proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on April 13, 2009, which would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and certain of its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s outstanding Common Stock (in lieu of consummating such merger proposal, the Company consummated the aforementioned Exchange Offer). Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed merger transaction. On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court consolidated the four Delaware actions (the "Initial Consolidated Action"), and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. As announced on August 10, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to settle the Initial Consolidated Action, as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (as amended in September 2009, the "Settlement Agreement"). On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange for the Exchange Offer information regarding the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to those in the amended Sullivan complaint. Revlon initially believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman. Also on December 21, 2009, a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery Court against Revlon, Inc.'s current directors and a former director by Lawrence Corneck. The Gutman and Corneck actions make allegations similar to those in the amended complaints in the Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated Action. On January 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action (the Initial Consolidated Action, as consolidated with the Gutman and Corneck actions, is hereafter referred to as the "Consolidated Action"). A briefing schedule was then set to determine the leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. Thereafter, newly appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits discovery would proceed. Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part of the Settlement Agreement. On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On January 10, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for class certification. That motion is not yet fully briefed. Merits discovery is proceeding in the Consolidated Action. On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer to Exchange certain information relating to the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff in this action filed an amended complaint. On January 31, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Garofalo action. That motion is not yet fully briefed. Defendants previously reached an agreement with the plaintiff in the Garofalo action to permit the plaintiff to participate in merits discovery in the Consolidated Action, and have agreed to permit plaintiff to continue to participate in the merits discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending. An agreement has also been reached with the plaintiff in the Sullivan action to stay proceedings in that action, including any response to the amended complaint, until June 29, 2012, so that the plaintiff can participate in the merits discovery in the Consolidated Action. The Company believes the allegations contained in the amended Sullivan complaint, the amended complaint in the Consolidated Action, the amended Garofalo complaint and the Smutek complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue and believes that it would prevail at trial. However, in an effort to mitigate the utilization of time and resources on these matters, the Company has had discussions regarding settlement of these matters. Based on the current state of discussions, it appears that the likelihood of a settlement is remote at this time. RYDER SYSTEM: Defends Suits Alleging Wage & Hour Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Ryder System, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits alleging violations of wage and hour laws, according to the Company's February 16, 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 few lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations and improper pay practice claims. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were not paid for certain hours worked, were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. Ryder denies liability and is defending the actions, and although these matters have not been definitively resolved, the Company does not believe that any resolution will materially affect its consolidated operating results or financial position. SYNGENTA AG: Holiday Shores Suit vs. Unit Currently in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit commenced by the Holiday Shores Sanitary District against a subsidiary of Syngenta AG is currently in the discovery phase, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Holiday Shores Sanitary District in Madison County, Illinois, filed a class action complaint against Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. ("SCPI") and its distributor Growmark, Inc. in July 2004 purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of all Illinois community water systems ("CWS") who have, allegedly, suffered contamination of their water sources on account of the presence at any measurable level of the product atrazine, a herbicide manufactured since the late 1950s by SCPI and its predecessors in interest, Novartis Crop Protection, Inc., Ciba-Geigy and Geigy Chemical Corporation. The name of SCPI is now Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, but the former name of the company continues to be used in this litigation and in other proceedings. The Holiday Shores Complaint alleges that the product atrazine and/or its degradant chemicals are harmful to humans as consumed through dietary water, and that run-off from the soil where atrazine has been applied has damaged the CWS' property and contaminated its surface waters, used as a source of drinking water for Illinois. It alleges claims of trespass, nuisance, negligence, strict liability and violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and seeks monetary damages, including the past and future costs of purchase, installation, maintenance and operation of granular activated carbon ("GAC") filtration systems, costs of testing and monitoring for atrazine, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. SCPI filed a Motion to Dismiss which in July 2008 was denied by the court (except as regards those parts of the Motion which sought dismissal of the punitive damage and remediation claims -- those claims have been dismissed although plaintiff may attempt to re-assert the punitive damage claim at a later date). Since the denial of that Motion, Holiday Shores amended its Complaint to add seven additional CWS as named plaintiffs and has stipulated that its purported class will consist of no more than ninety-nine CWS. Shortly before the hearing in February 2010 of SCPI's Motion to Transfer the claims of those plaintiffs not located in Madison County to their home counties, plaintiffs' counsel filed a voluntary dismissal of all of plaintiffs' property damage-related claims, and based primarily on this action the judge in April 2010 entered an Order denying the Motion to Transfer. The hearing was held in June 2010, of a further Motion to Dismiss filed by SCPI, as well as a Motion to have the lawsuit stayed or dismissed without prejudice in the light of the filing of the parallel federal City of Greenville lawsuit. In August 2010, the judge issued an Order denying both of those Motions. The Plaintiffs filed a series of subpoenas against third parties, including growers' associations, academic institutions and external advisers to SCPI, and SCPI, and a number of the recipients filed Motions to Quash those subpoenas. In September 2010, the judge issued an Order denying in part the Motions to Quash and ruling that information concerning SCPI and its relationship to those third parties, and communications between SCPI and those third parties were relevant and discoverable. An application for leave to appeal against this Order was filed with the judge, and in October 2010, the judge entered a further Order certifying certain questions for interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court and staying discovery on the issues which were the subject of the September 2010 Order pending resolution of any appeal. The application for leave to appeal was denied by the Appellate Court on January 13, 2011. SCPI then filed a writ regarding the matter with the Illinois Supreme Court which has also been denied. The case is now in the discovery phase and SCPI has filed answers to interrogatories as well as produced many pages of documents; depositions are sought to be scheduled by plaintiff's counsel with seventeen current or former SCPI employees. No trial timetable has yet been defined for the lawsuit. Greenville Matter In March 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in Holiday Shores filed a new federal lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (City of Greenville et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Syngenta AG) on behalf of seventeen CWS located in six mid-Western states; an Amended Complaint filed late in March 2010 adds seven new plaintiffs, five of which are subsidiaries of American Water Company, a large private utility, in five of the six states implicated in the litigation. The claims in this lawsuit essentially repeat those causes of action which have survived motion practice in Holiday Shores and seek compensatory and punitive damages for all past and future costs incurred by the plaintiffs in the removal of atrazine from raw water supplies, and certification of a class of all public water providers in the six states which use surface water as their water source and which have had consistently detectable levels of atrazine in their raw drinking water. SCPI in May 2010 filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit on grounds including lack of standing and of cause of action and Syngenta AG on May 18, 2010, filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, in response to which plaintiffs in June 2010 filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery to which the Court agreed. At a hearing held in July 2010 this Order was modified, the period for limited discovery was extended to October 26, 2010, and the deadline for plaintiffs' responses to Syngenta AG's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction set to November 15, 2010. In September 2010 the Magistrate Judge issued an Order further amending the scope of jurisdictional discovery. In November 2010, the federal court judge issued a Memorandum and Order denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by SCPI save as to the claims in the Complaint of strict liability for manufacturing, marketing and selling an unreasonably dangerous product to the extent that those claims were asserted by two Indiana-based plaintiffs. In December 2010, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Syngenta AG's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and a Motion to Strike parts of the Affidavits filed by Syngenta AG in support of its Motion, to which Syngenta AG filed its Reply on January 17, 2011. The Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to the lawsuit to take part in a settlement conference held on April 11, 2011, but this was unproductive. The oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss for lack of Personal Jurisdiction was held before the federal course judge on July 27, 2011. On November 23, 2011, the court denied Syngenta AG's motion and on December 15, 2011, Syngenta AG filed a motion to reconsider, which is pending. Plaintiffs have also recently filed a Motion to Amend their Complaint in the lawsuit to add counts for Declaratory Judgment relief specifying that atrazine is harmful to human health, that atrazine is a defective product, and that Syngenta is responsible for reimbursing plaintiffs for all future costs that plaintiffs incur in testing for and removing atrazine from their water, and SCPI on October 10, 2011, filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims for declaratory relief. SCPI is in process of taking deposition evidence from representatives of the plaintiff CWS. On November 30, 2011, Syngenta filed motions for summary judgment on the claims of plaintiffs City of Greenville, Illinois, and City of Marion, Kansas. In response on December 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the time for them to respond to summary judgment motions until after they disclose on July 16, 2012, their experts on the merits of the case. Depositions of fact witnesses for class certification must be completed by April 2, 2012. Plaintiffs' class expert disclosures are due April 2, 2012, while defendants' class expert disclosures are due May 2, 2012. Plaintiffs' motion to class certification is due June 15, 2012. Plaintiffs' trial expert disclosures are due July 16, 2012, while defendants' trial expert disclosures are due August 15, 2012. All discovery must be completed by October 8, 2012. The previously set trial date of December 3, 2012, has been vacated and no new trial date has been set. As the plaintiffs in the cases have not quantified their claims, nor has the number of plaintiffs in the actions been determined, it is not possible to estimate individually or in total the amounts in dispute nor to quantify the likely outcome. However, Syngenta intends to vigorously defend these cases. Atrazine is a long-standing successful product of the Company and its predecessors, which has been repeatedly scrutinized for safety over the years by government agencies. No amounts have been provided for a settlement. SCPI vs. Insurers In a related lawsuit (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America et al.) filed by SCPI in September 2008, in the State of New Jersey, and amended in November 2008, July 2009 and April 2010, SCPI is seeking a declaratory judgment under the Ciba-Geigy legacy insurance policies that the defense costs and potential damages in the Holiday Shores case and the City of Greenville case, as well as any other product liability claims against SCPI alleging harm in connection with the use of or exposure to atrazine or atrazine-containing products, are covered under said policies and that the insurers are obligated to defend SCPI. Certain of the insurer defendants in the litigation, comprising the Insurance Company of North America, Century Indemnity Company and ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company (the "INA Claimants") initiated an arbitration proceeding against SCPI, Novartis Corporation and Ciba Corporation (the "Respondents") under the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association, seeking a determination as to whether insurance claims that SCPI is pursuing against them in the litigation were previously released pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated January 13, 1999, between the INA Claimants, on the one hand, and Novartis Corporation and Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation (now Ciba Corporation) on the other hand (the "INA Settlement Agreement"). The arbitration proceeding, purportedly brought pursuant to the arbitration provision of the INA Settlement Agreement, was commenced in March 2009 and the hearing of the arbitration took place on June 14 and 15, 2011. The Arbitrator ordered the filing of post-hearing briefs by the parties the last of which was submitted by the INA Claimants on August 26, 2011. On October 7, 2011 the Arbitrator issued a Final Award in favor of the INA Claimants. Everest Reinsurance Company, Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and eight other insurers have filed Motions for Summary Judgments also claiming to have been released from coverage with respect to the insurance claims which SCPI is pursuing against them in the litigation, under Environmental Settlement Agreements with Novartis and/or Ciba-Geigy and SCPI has filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment dismissing the striking insurers' affirmative defenses and on December 16, 2011, filed a sur-reply in further opposition to the Summary Judgment Motions and in support of the Cross-Motions. Oral argument on the Motions was scheduled for February 9, 2012. Discovery is proceeding in the declaratory action lawsuit. While SCPI intends to pursue its claims vigorously against the insurers for any costs and losses associated with the Holiday Shores or City of Greenville litigation or any other atrazine- related claims, the amount that is or may ultimately be recoverable from the insurers with respect to such claims cannot be predicted with certainty at this time. THOMSON REUTERS: Faces Copyright Infringement Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Lawyers Weekly reports that a novel "mass copyright infringement" class action, which contends that lawyers enjoy copyright in the court documents they create, has been given the green light to proceed. At press time, defendant Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. had yet to announce whether it would seek leave to appeal to Ontario's Divisional Court. Superior Court Justice Paul Perell's Feb. 21 decision certifies a $51-million-plus national class action, but leaves a number of potentially contentious issues to be determined on an individual, rather than a class basis. The class action, which breaks new ground in Canada, was launched in 2010 by prominent Toronto immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman. He alleges that Thomson's Westlaw Litigator service infringed his copyright and moral rights, and those of other lawyers, by reproducing in various downloadable formats, and making available for a fee online, more than 100,000 pleadings, court motions, affidavits and facta the defendant has copied from court files across Canada. There are 12,000 to 13,000 lawyers' names, and about 6,500 firm names, on the court documents in Litigator. Thomson Reuters, which says it has invested substantially in Litigator (including paying more than $1-million to courts for file access fees and photocopying charges), disputes the plaintiff's allegations on the merits. It denies infringing copyright, and raises defenses based on fair dealing, public policy, implied consent and the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. The case's central question is the extent to which lawyers enjoy copyright protection for their open-court filings. "The copyright in legal documents is not a settled matter," Justice Perell observed in his decision. "There are serious policy questions about how much, if any, [copyright] protection . . . legal documents, including court documents, should have." Thomson Reuters counsel Wendy Matheson of Toronto's Torys told The Lawyers Weekly the company "has not reached a conclusion on a potential appeal" but "whatever the outcome of this procedural step, Thomson Reuters is confident in its position on the merits, and will be vigorously defending the claim." Counsel for the representative plaintiff, Louis Sokolov -- lsokolov@sgmlaw.com -- and Jordan Goldblatt -- jgoldblatt@sgmlaw.com -- of Toronto's Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, said they don't anticipate problems as a result of the court's decision to leave a number of issues to be sorted out on an individual basis, if the plaintiff succeeds on the common issues certified by the court. "We think that the disputes in individual cases are going to be minimal, if in fact they happen at all," Mr. Sokolov said. "How many individual issues trials do you actually see in certified class proceedings? I can think of few, if any. And we don't think that this will be any different." He noted that, from the plaintiff's point of view, "no one is saying that making legal documents publicly available isn't a good thing, and nobody is saying that the service that [Thomson Reuters] is providing doesn't have commercial and social utility -- that's not the issue. The issue is whether they're entitled to do what they're doing without asking permission, and without license." In opposing the certification of class proceedings, Thomson Reuters argued that Mr. Waldman is trying to limit access to publicly filed court documents, asserting this is antithetical to the open court system, access to justice, behavior modification and judicial economy. But Justice Perell ruled there were common issues that should be determined on a class basis, albeit not all of the issues presented for certification by the plaintiff. He pointed out that the test for certification presents a "very low bar" for plaintiffs. Therefore, his function as a gatekeeper was "limited to ensuring that the technical and procedural elements of the test are satisfied, which, subject to some adjustments, is the situation for the case at Bar." "Viewed globally, the class action will not be unmanageable and indeed may not have to be managed much, if Thomson is correct that class members are not interested in pursuing claims," he wrote. The judge certified two common issues relating to Thomson's alleged conduct. Did the company through its Litigator service: (1) "reproduce, publish, telecommunicate to the public, sell, rent, or hold itself out as the author or owner of court documents?" or (2) "authorize subscribers to reproduce, publish, telecommunicate to the public, sell, rent, translate, or hold themselves out as the author or owner of court documents?" The judge also certified common issues raised by Thomson's defenses: "Does Thomson have a public policy defense to copyright infringement or to the violation of moral rights based on (a) fair dealing, (b) the open court principle, (c) freedom of expression, (d) the necessity of using the idea of the court document as it is expressed, or (e) a business or professional custom or public policy reason that would justify reproducing, publishing, telecommunicating to the public, selling, renting, translating, or holding itself out as the author or owner of court documents?" Moreover, "did Thomson have the copyright owner's implicit consent to reproduce, publish, telecommunicate to the public, sell, rent, translate, or hold itself out as the author or owner of court documents?" Certified as common issues as well: "are class members entitled to injunctive relief" under s. 34(1) of the Copyright Act; and "does Thomson's conduct justify an award of aggravated, exemplary, or punitive damages?' TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Ruling on Asbestos-Related Suit Appeals ------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc. is awaiting a court decision in connection with appeals from a judgment that denied a request for an order of contempt and for sanctions, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action lawsuits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These lawsuits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these lawsuits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims. The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations. Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law claims were filed against TPC. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-sum payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlement requires a payment of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. Among the contingencies for each of these settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court ("the 1986 Orders"). On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC ("the Clarifying Order"). The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct action claims that may be filed in the future. On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order while vacating that portion of the order that required all future direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before proceeding in state or federal court. Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006 ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the Clarifying Order. On February 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which were denied. TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision, and on December 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted. On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC, reversing the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision, finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law Claims against TPC. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order. However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further proceedings on those specific issues. On October 21, 2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the order approving the settlement, and that request was granted. On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by that objector against TPC. On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit, requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was denied on May 25, 2010. On August 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor. The Supreme Court denied the Petitions on November 29, 2010. The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy court on September 2, 2010, and September 3, 2010, respectively, arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts. On September 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs' Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion. On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was required to fund the settlements. On January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in accordance with its December 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest. On January 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment. On January 24, 2011, certain of the plaintiffs in the Common Law Claims actions appealed that portion of the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment that denied their request for an order of contempt and for sanctions. Oral argument on the appeals took place on January 9, 2012, and the parties await the court's decision. SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in Texas state court asserting common law claims. All such cases that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court. If any of those cases becomes active, SPC intends to litigate those cases vigorously. SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio state court. Those actions have all been dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts. From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been named in individual direct actions in other jurisdictions. Currently, the Company says it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on the future development of claims and litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims. Any such development will be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the current related reserves. In addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges that could be material to the Company's results of operations in future periods. TRAVELERS COS: Still Awaits Final OK of Antitrust Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including The Travelers Companies, Inc., by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through one or more of the defendant brokers. The plaintiffs alleged that various insurance brokers conspired with each other and with various insurers, including the Company, to artificially inflate premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance products offered to those customers. To the extent they were not originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other class actions under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. On August 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named plaintiffs in the class actions, filed an amended consolidated class action complaint naming various brokers and insurers, including the Company, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of policyholders. The complaint included causes of action under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states prohibiting antitrust violations. The complaint sought monetary damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits, interest and costs, including attorneys' fees. All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to replead, the court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on August 31, 2007, and the RICO claims on September 28, 2007, both with prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all Sherman Act and RICO claims against certain defendants, including the Company, except for Sherman Act and RICO claims involving the sale of excess casualty insurance through a single defendant broker, as well as all state law claims, which they remanded to the district court for further proceedings. On October 1, 2010, defendants, including the Company, filed renewed motions to dismiss the remanded claims. On March 18, 2011, the Company and certain other defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit. The settlement, under which the Company agreed to pay $6.75 million, is subject to court approval. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on June 27, 2011. On September 14, 2011, the court conducted a final fairness hearing and the settling parties await the court's decision. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. TRAVELERS COS: Objectors Appeal Settlement Order in "Safeco" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Objectors took an appeal from orders approving a settlement agreement of a class action lawsuit, in which a subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc., is a class member, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Travelers Indemnity Company is one of the Settlement Class plaintiffs and a class member in a class action lawsuit captioned Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al. v. American International Group, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.) in which the defendants are alleged to have engaged in the under- reporting of workers' compensation premium in connection with a workers' compensation reinsurance pool in which several subsidiaries of the Company participate. On July 26, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement pursuant to which the defendants agreed to pay $450 million to the class. The settlement includes a plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds among the class members. On December 21, 2011, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. On January 19, 2012, three parties who objected to the settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's orders approving the settlement with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Company anticipates that its allocation from the settlement fund, in the event the court's approval of the class settlement is affirmed, will be approximately $90 million. This amount is treated for accounting purposes as a gain contingency in accordance with FASB Topic 450, Contingencies, and accordingly has not been recognized in the Company's consolidated financial statements. VENOCO INC: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by T. Marquez --------------------------------------------------------------- Venoco, Inc. disclosed in its February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that it is facing several class action lawsuits over its chief executive officer and chairman, Timothy Marquez's proposed acquisition of the Company. On August 26, 2011, Timothy Marquez, the Chairman and CEO of the Company, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors of the Company to acquire all of the shares of the Company he does not beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, four lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against the Company and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that the Company and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal. A fifth lawsuit filed in 2011, also in the Delaware Court of Chancery, named only Mr. Marquez as a defendant. On January 16, 2012, the Company announced it had entered into a merger agreement with Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which, at closing, each of the shareholders other than Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would receive $12.50 for each share of Company stock (the "Merger"). Following announcement of the merger agreement, three additional lawsuits were filed in Delaware and three lawsuits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants the Company and each of its directors. Each action seeks certification as a class action. Plaintiffs in both the Delaware and Colorado actions challenge the Merger and allege, among other things, that the consideration to be paid is inadequate. The complaints seek, among other relief, to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger and to direct defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the shareholders. The Company has reviewed the allegations contained in the complaints and believes they are without merit. VIA RAIL: Sutts, Strosberg Mulls Class Action Over Train Crash -------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Stechyson, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a law office that successfully led a class-action lawsuit against Via Rail and CN after a 1999 derailment has been contacted by injured passengers from the Feb. 26 deadly train crash near Burlington, Ont. Sutts, Strosberg LLP will likely move forward on a multi-million dollar class-action lawsuit later this week, said Windsor, Ont., lawyer Sharon Strosberg. "We're inclined to start a class proceeding on behalf of all the individuals who were on that train, and we have a lot of experience in that area," Ms. Strosberg said. "We think it's a very good case that has some merit and we would be privileged to start it." Via Rail train 92 derailed on a straight track in good weather Sunday afternoon near Burlington, a community about 60 kilometers southwest of Toronto. Three Via Rail employees -- two senior locomotive engineers and a trainee -- were killed when the locomotive and five cars jumped the tracks as the train switched from one track to another -- what should have been a normal procedure akin to changing lanes. A total of 45 passengers were taken to hospital, where eight remained on Feb. 27. The three most seriously injured suffered a broken leg, a back injury and a heart attack. Typically, Ms. Strosberg said, people in class-action lawsuits are compensated based on any inconvenience or injuries sustained. "Of course, the more serious the injury, people would be compensated for that." She encouraged any passengers on board to contact Sutts, Strosberg LLP in Windsor or Falconer Charney LLP in Toronto. Sutts, Strosberg LLP reached a settlement with Via Rail and CN in 2002 over a class-action suit after a Via Rail train derailed in Thamesville, Ont., in 1999. Seventy-seven of the 186 passengers and crew on board were treated in hospital. Two crew members died. CN and Via Rail agreed to settle and to pay damages. WALGREEN CO: Sued Over Unpaid OT Wages for Pharmacists in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Choi, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 112CV216291 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., January 6, 2012) is brought on behalf of a putative class of Walgreen's non-exempt pharmacists in California. The Plaintiff alleges that Walgreen failed to pay him and the class members overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7-2001. The Plaintiff also contends that Walgreen failed to timely pay wages earned during employment, to provide accurate itemized wage statements, to timely pay all wages due at the time of termination and to pay for reimbursable business expenses. Mr. Choi a resident of California. Walgreen is an Illinois corporation, with its principal place of business in Illinois. The Company removed the lawsuit on February 24, 2012 from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Walgreen argues that the removal is proper because the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and the action is a class action in which at least one class member is a citizen of a state different from that of Walgreen. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:12-cv-00938 to the proceeding. The Defendants are represented by: Diana Tabacopoulos, Esq. Jill Porcado, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: dtabacopoulos@seyfarth.com jporcado@seyfarth.com - and - Candace S. Bertoldi SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: cbertoldi@seyfarth.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaits Decisions on Motions in ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Waste Management, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on certain motions that, if granted, would resolve the few remaining claims against it in the lawsuit filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In April 2002, certain former participants in the ERISA plans of Waste Management Holdings, Inc. ("WM Holdings") filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al. The lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan participants on behalf of the plan based on allegations related to both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998, the litigation against Waste Management, Inc. ("WM") in Texas that was settled in 2002, as well as the decision to offer WM common stock as an investment option within the plan beginning in 1990, despite alleged knowledge by at least two members of the investment committee of financial misstatement by WM during the relevant time period. During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain claims against individual defendants, including all claims against each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors. Previously, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the settlement of the securities class action against WM that was settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not individually. During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM stock as an investment option within the plan. The Court still has under consideration additional motions that, if granted, would resolve the few remaining claims against WM and its Committees. The outcome of this lawsuit cannot be predicted with certainty. The defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in this litigation. Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services company in North America. Its subsidiaries provide collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The Company is also a developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas- to-energy facilities in the United States. Its customers include residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers throughout North America. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Suits Over Fuel & Environmental Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Waste Management, Inc. is facing two purported class action lawsuits in Florida and Alabama over its fuel and environmental charges in customer service agreements, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In October 2011 and January 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida, and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama, respectively. These lawsuits were filed by the same law firm that brought a lawsuit in Alabama, which was dismissed in the third quarter of 2011, and these cases also primarily pertain to the Company's fuel and environmental charges in its customer service agreements, generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were contrary to the contracts. The Company says it will vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time, nor can possible damages, if any, be reasonably estimated. Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services company in North America. Its subsidiaries provide collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The Company is also a developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas- to-energy facilities in the United States. Its customers include residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers throughout North America. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: AWP Suit Settlement Approved in December ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered in December 2011 a final order and judgment granting final approval of a settlement resolving a consolidated class action lawsuit involving Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Beginning in July 2002, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in various state and federal court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and market shares. Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 145). The consolidated amended Class Action complaint in that case alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated the reimbursement amounts of certain drugs paid by various public and private plans and programs. Certain defendants, including the Company, have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims against them in the Consolidated Class Action (the "Track Two Settlement"). The total amount of the settlement for all of the settling defendants is $125 million. The amount to be paid by each settling defendant is confidential. On July 2, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track Two settlement. On December 8, 2011, the Court entered a final order and judgment granting final approval of the Track Two Settlement. The settlement is not expected to materially adversely affect the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: FTC's Appeal in Androgel Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's appeal from the dismissal of its complaint in the Androgel antitrust litigation remains pending, according to Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the Company's September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that the Company improperly delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange for Solvay's agreement to permit the Company to co-promote Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided by the Company, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable relief and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228). On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009, the State of California voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the Company without prejudice. The Federal Trade Commission and the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia filed amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation. Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect purchasers of Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al.,D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1856 ); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. MN Civ. No. 09- 1168); ( Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v. Unimed Pharms.,LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240); (Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-1024); (LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ. No. 10-2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al ., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837). On April 20, 2009, the Company was dismissed without prejudice from the Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey. On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re: AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084), and all currently-pending related actions are presently before that court. On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints, except the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that include allegations concerning sham litigation. On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in the direct purchaser actions. On October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on September 10, 2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and made subject to the Court's February 22, 2010 order on the motion to dismiss. Discovery in the private actions is ongoing. Final judgment in favor of the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission's action on April 21, 2010. On June 10, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing the district court's dismissal of its complaint. The appeal is pending. The Company believes that these actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing in TCPA-Violation Suit on Mar. 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The hearing on the class certification motion in a lawsuit alleging Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s subsidiary violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is scheduled for March 21, 2012, according to the Company's February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a purported class action complaint against the Company alleging conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The lawsuit is captioned Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257). In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant. The amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The TCPA allows recovery of minimum statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled if the violations are found to be willful. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties. In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying the allegations. In November 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion to expand the proposed class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of express permission or an established business relationship to "All persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of Defendant." In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class of plaintiffs. On November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient. The FCC's ruling on Anda's petition may determine whether fax recipients who expressly agree to receive faxes may assert claims for receipt of such faxes pursuant to the TCPA. On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of putative class members who expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay the court proceedings pending resolution of Anda's petition to the FCC. On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed their motion for class certification. Anda filed its opposition to the motion on July 13, 2011. The hearing on the class certification motion is scheduled for March 21, 2012. No trial date has been set. Anda believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the action, including but not limited to its receipt of consent to receive facsimile advertisements from many of the putative class members, and intends to defend the action vigorously. However, this action, if successful, could have an adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plea for Review in Cipro Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' petition for review in connection with a judgment in an antitrust lawsuit in California remains pending, according to Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s February 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Beginning in July 2000, a number of lawsuits were filed against Watson, The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") and other company affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification. Approximately 42 cases have been filed against Watson, Rugby and other Watson entities. Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 001383). On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action granted Watson's motion to dismiss and made rulings limiting the theories under which plaintiffs can seek recovery against Rugby and the other defendants. On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the consolidated action granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of plaintiffs' claims and denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated action (the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and plaintiffs Rite Aid and CVS) filed notices of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things, the May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005 order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On November 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the appeal by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On October 15, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the indirect purchasers' claims, and on December 22, 2008, denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari. On April 29, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and on September 7, 2010, denied the appellants' petition for rehearing en banc. On March 7, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari. Other actions are pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. In the action pending in Kansas, the court has administratively terminated the matter pending the outcome of the appeals in the consolidated case. In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was entered on September 24, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On October 31, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. The petition has been fully briefed and remains pending. In addition to the pending actions, Watson understands that various state and federal agencies are investigating the allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. WELLCARE HEALTH: Repurchased $112.5-MM Subordinated Notes in Dec. ----------------------------------------------------------------- WellCare Health Plans, Inc. repurchased in December 2011 all of the $112.5 million subordinated notes it previously issued in accordance with its settlement agreement resolving a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's February 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In December 2010, WellCare entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation Agreement") with the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action Eastwood Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv- 1940-VMC-EAJ. The Stipulation Agreement included two contingencies to which WellCare remains subject. First, it provides that if, within three years following the date of the settlement agreement, WellCare is acquired or otherwise experiences a change in control at a share price of $30.00 or more, the Company will pay to the class an additional $25,000. Second, the Stipulation Agreement provides that the Company will pay to the class 25% of any sums the Company recovers from Todd Farha, Paul Behrens and/or Thad Bereday as a result of claims arising from the same facts and circumstances that gave rise to the consolidated securities class action. In connection with the settlement agreement that the Company reached with the lead plaintiffs to resolve certain putative class action complaints, which was approved by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in May 2011, the Company delivered to the escrow agent on behalf of the class, a $35.0 million non-negotiable, non-interest bearing, promissory note that was due and payable in full on July 31, 2011. This liability was previously accrued as part of amounts accrued related to the investigation resolution and this amount was paid in full on July 28, 2011. In March 2011, the Company paid $52.5 million. On September 30, 2011, the Company issued tradable unsecured subordinated notes having an aggregate par value of $112.5 million, with a fixed coupon of 6% and a maturity date of December 31, 2016. These notes were issued in connection with the stipulation and settlement agreement. On December 15, 2011, the Company repurchased all of the $112.5 million subordinated notes at 90% of face value. The Company recorded a gain on the repurchase of subordinated notes in the amount of $10.8 million. Interest of approximately $4.1 million was incurred on these notes in 2011, including amounts retroactive to May 2011, and was paid at the time of repurchase. * Securities Class Actions Gain Traction in Canada -------------------------------------------------- Ashby Jones, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that unfavorable court rulings and legislation have helped damp filings of securities class-action lawsuits in the U.S., but these suits are starting to gain traction in Canada, prompting some U.S. lawyers to increasingly look for opportunities up north. One high-profile U.S. plaintiffs' firm has already gone north. Milberg LLP has teamed up with Canada's Kim Orr Barristers P.C., in order to mine the burgeoning Canadian class-action market. Class-action lawsuits allow thousands of individuals to group their claims together in a single action against a company. Michael Spencer -- mspencer@milberg.com -- a seasoned New York- based lawyer at Milberg, who last year passed the Ontario bar exam and has a case pending in Canada, said he hoped the market for litigation would become more fertile as the domestic law related to class action develops. By U.S. standards, the activity in Canada is small. Last year, lawyers in Canada filed 15 securities class-action lawsuits, the most ever in a calendar year, according to a recent study by the Toronto office of global consulting firm National Economic Research Associates Inc., also known as NERA. In the U.S., by contrast, lawyers filed 188 securities class actions in 2011, according to a study issued by Stanford Law School and Cornerstone Research. But there were 45 active cases in Canada as of the end of 2011, more than twice the number pending at the end of 2007 and more than four times the number active in 2000, according to the NERA report. The 45 cases represent more than 24 billion Canadian dollars (US$24 billion) in outstanding claims. Part of the interest in Canada among U.S. lawyers -- who are watching Milberg's move closely -- follows a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that plaintiff classes in securities cases should be restricted to investors who purchased shares on U.S. exchanges. The ruling, called Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., reined in the number of participants -- and dollar values -- of some class actions, and is causing some plaintiffs' lawyers to look for business opportunities abroad, including in Canada. The genesis of the miniboom in Canada traces to a 2005 tweak to an Ontario law known as Bill 198 that imposed tougher disclosure requirements on Canadian companies and made it easier for investors to sue publicly traded Canadian companies. The change was prompted partly by a late 1990s scandal involving a Calgary- based mining company called Bre-X Minerals Ltd., whose investors lost billions in a fraud involving a purported gold deposit in Indonesia. In late 2009, an Ontario judge made a ruling allowing a class of shareholders to proceed in a case against Imax Corp., the Mississauga, Ontario-based entertainment company. A spokeswoman for Imax called the lawsuit "meritless," and said the company would continue to "vigorously defend the matter." That decision, followed by a 2011 ruling in a case involving the parent company of Winnipeg, Manitoba-based ice maker and distributor Arctic Glacier Inc., opened wide the door for securities class actions, according to Dimitri Lascaris, a plaintiffs' lawyer at Siskinds LLP in London, Ontario. "We have meaningful standards now," he said. "It's a big part of why you're seeing more suits." Whether lawyers' interest in building an industry in Canada will last is unclear. The country's legal system poses some unfamiliar challenges for plaintiffs. Unlike the U.S., Canada follows a "loser pays" system, which means the loser in a lawsuit has to pick up the legal tab for the winner. And under Bill 198, most recoveries are limited to 5% of a defendant's market capitalization. "There's less upside and with loser pays, a good bit of downside risk," said Siskinds's Mr. Lascaris. "As a result, you tend to be a little more selective up here." As in the U.S., securities class-actions in Canada have so far tended to settle, rather than to go to trial. To date, 10 class actions brought under Bill 198 have settled at an average of $10 million a case, according to the NERA study. The Arctic Glacier case settled earlier this month for about $13.8 million. Several high-profile cases are still pending, including the Imax case and one against Sino-Forest Corp., a Chinese forestry company that trades on the Toronto exchange. ********* 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 * * *