/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120404.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, April 4, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 67
Headlines
ADAMS GOLF: Being Sold to Taylor Made for Too Little, Suit Says
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Plaintiffs Did Not Seek Dismissal Review
ALLY FINANCIAL: Appeal in New Jersey Carpenters Suit Pending
ALLY FINANCIAL: Punitive Damages in "Mitchell" Suit Still Pending
ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in Illinois
APPLE INC: Faces Second Class Action Over iPhone 4S Siri Feature
APPLE INC: iPhone 4 Owners Can Claim $15 Payment in Antenna Suit
ATLANTIC BULLION: Faces Class Action
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Still Defends Securities Suit in Tennessee
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Unit Still Defends Consumer Suit in Florida
BP: Accuses Gov't. of Withholding Documents on Oil Spill Estimates
CELL THERAPEUTICS: July 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CHICAGO CITY: Sued Over Prosecution Without Licensed Attorneys
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces More Antitrust Suit Over Wire Harness
DYNEGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Icahn Takeover
FACEBOOK INC: Branch McMaster Files Class Action Over Ads
FUTENMA: Okinawa Residents File Class Action Over Aircraft Noise
HAPPY SHIRTS: Recalls 9,000 Toy Truck Gifts Due to Fire Hazard
HEALTH MGMT: Faces Two Securities Lawsuits in Florida
HERTZ CORP: Calif. Tourism Fees Suit Stayed, Parties May Settle
HERTZ CORP: Class Certification Bid in "Sobel" Lawsuit Pending
HERTZ CORP: Seeks to Remove Consumer Suit to Kansas Federal Court
HERTZ CORP: Unit Still Defends Suit on Loss Damage Waiver Charges
ISTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
M/I HOMES: Remaining Claims in Drywall Suit Still Pending
MEGAPATH INC: Faces Class Action Over E-mail Delivery Problems
NATIONAL LAMPOON: June 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NEVSUN RESOURCES: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
OLD NATIONAL: Objects to Add'l. Plaintiffs in Checking Acct. Suit
OLYMPIC ATHLETIC: Inks Settlement to Resolve Club Membership Suit
PFIZER INC: Judge Certifies Celebrex, Bextra Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Loses Bid to Decertify Mass. Smokers Class Status
PREMERA BLUE CROSS: Must Cover Autism Therapy, Court Rules
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA: Sued Over Seized Child Support Payments
ROYAL CANADIAN: Commissioner Takes Action After Class Action
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Unit Faces Lawsuit Over Franchise Practices
ST. JOE CO: Time to Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal Still Open
ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
STUART ARIFF: YCW Club Set to Claim AUD2.5MM in Class Action
SWISHER HYGIENE: May Face Class Action Over Annual Report Delay
TRUSTMARK CORP: Motions to Intervene in Stanford Suit Pending
TRUSTMARK CORP: Unit Faces Suit Over Overdraft Fees in Miss.
VIBRAM USA: Sued Over False Claims on FiveFingers Running Shoes
VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Fuel Pumps
WALSH GROUP: Black Employees' Class Action Can Proceed
*********
ADAMS GOLF: Being Sold to Taylor Made for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Adams Golf
is selling itself too cheaply to Taylor Made Golf, for $70 million
or $10.80 a share, in a class action in Chancery Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Tarsha v. B.H. Adams, et al., Case No.
7362 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/30/Golf.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
919 North Market Street, Suite 980
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
bdl@rigrodskylong.com
gs@rigrodskylong.com
- and -
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Plaintiffs Did Not Seek Dismissal Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit did
not seek further review of an appellate court's decision affirming
the dismissal of their case, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. said in its
February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Matson Navigation
Company, Inc., were named as defendants in a consolidated civil
lawsuit purporting to be a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. The lawsuit
alleged violations of the antitrust laws and also named as a
defendant Horizon Lines, Inc., another domestic shipping carrier
operating in the Hawaii and Guam trades. On November 30, 2010,
the judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On September
29, 2011, the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously affirmed the
District Court's dismissal. The plaintiffs did not seek further
review of the decision.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Appeal in New Jersey Carpenters Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the denial of class certification in the New Jersey
Carpenters Litigation remains pending, according to Ally Financial
Inc.'s February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.
On January 3, 2011, New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, New Jersey
Carpenters Vacation Fund, and Boilermaker Blacksmith National
Pension Trust, on behalf of themselves and a putative class
(collectively, New Jersey Carpenters), filed a Consolidated Second
Amended Securities Class Action Complaint against numerous
defendants including Residential Capital LLC (ResCap); Residential
Funding LLC, RALI; and Residential Funding Securities Corporation
d/b/a GMAC RFC Securities. The complaint alleges that the
plaintiffs and the class purchased mortage-backed securities
between June 28, 2006, and May 30, 2007, and asserts that the
offering documents associated with these transactions contained
misrepresentations and omitted material information in violation
of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, among other
relief. New Jersey Carpenters moved for class certification. The
court denied the plaintiffs' motion, and an appeal from that
decision is pending.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Punitive Damages in "Mitchell" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial on punitive damages against Ally Financial Inc.'s subsidiary
in the statewide class action known as the Mitchell Litigation
began this month, according to the Company's
February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
In the statewide class action known as the Mitchell Litigation,
plaintiffs alleged that Mortgage Capital Resources, Inc. (MCR)
violated the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act by charging
Missouri borrowers fees and interest not permitted by the Act.
Residential Funding Company LLC (RFC) and Homecomings Financial
LLC (HFN), among others, were named as defendants in their role as
assignees of certain of the MCR loans. Following a trial
concluded in January 2008, the jury returned verdicts against all
defendants, including an award against RFC and HFN for $4 million
in compensatory damages (plus pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees) and against RFC for $92 million in punitive
damages. In a November 2010 decision, the Missouri Court of
Appeals affirmed the compensatory damages but ordered a new trial
on punitive damages. Upon remand, the Company paid $13 million in
compensatory damages (including interest and attorneys' fees).
Trial on punitive damages against RFC and the other non-company
defendants was set to begin on March 5, 2012.
The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.
ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2009, the Garden City Employees' Retirement System
filed a purported class action under the federal securities laws
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against Anixter International, Inc. its current and
former chief executive officers and its former chief financial
officer. In November 2009, the Court entered an order appointing
the Indiana Laborers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointing
lead plaintiff's counsel. In January 2010, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint principally
alleges that the Company made misleading statements during 2008
regarding certain aspects of its financial performance and
outlook. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of persons who purchased the common stock of the Company between
January 29 and October 20, 2008. In March 2011, the Court
dismissed the complaint but allowed the lead plaintiff the
opportunity to re-plead its complaint. The plaintiff did so in
April 2011. The Company and the other defendants intend to
continue to defend themselves vigorously against the allegations.
Based on facts known to management at this time, the Company
cannot estimate the amount of loss, if any, and, therefore, has
not made any accrual for this matter in these financial
statements.
No further updates were reported in the Company's February 27,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
APPLE INC: Faces Second Class Action Over iPhone 4S Siri Feature
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Ong, writing for AppleInsider, reports that a new class-
action lawsuit has been filed against Apple over its Siri voice
recognition feature of the iPhone 4S with allegations that the
company is falsely representing the service's capabilities.
iPhone 4S owner David Jones filed suit against the Cupertino,
Calif., company on March 27, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.
The new lawsuit echoes a similar complaint filed by a consumer in
New York earlier last month.
"Through its nationwide multimedia marketing campaign, Apple
disseminates false and deceptive representations regarding the
functionality of the Siri feature," the report noted the suit as
claiming. "For example, in many of Apple's television
commercials, consumers are shown using Siri to make appointments,
find restaurants, and even to learn the guitar chords to classic
rock songs. In its advertisements, Apple depicts these tasks as
easily accomplished "just by asking" Siri."
The complaint went on to characterize Apple's commercials as
"deceptive" because they "diverge greatly" from real world use of
the feature by the plaintiff and "fellow consumers."
For Mr. Jones specifically, "Siri would either not understand what
Plaintiff asked, or, after a long wait, provided the wrong
answer," the suit read. He purchased the smartphone in December
and is seeking "relief and damages" for himself and other iPhone
4S buyers.
Most of Apple's advertising efforts for the iPhone 4S have focused
on Siri. The first commercial for the company's latest handset
showcased the range of tasks that Siri is capable of performing.
Subsequent TV spots took a more narrative approach and showed
iPhone 4S users relying on Siri for a cross-country trip and
starting a rock band.
A recent study found that 87 percent of iPhone 4S owners use Siri
at least monthly. Some respondents called the functionality the
"best thing since the invention of toast," while others described
it as "very disappointing."
Scattered reports have emerged of users, especially those with
accents not specifically accommodated by Apple, having trouble
operating Siri. Despite the fact that Apple has actively promoted
Siri, the software remains in beta.
Siri currently understands French, German, Japanese and
Australian, British and American English. Apple has promised to
teach Siri Mandarin, Italian, Korean and Spanish later this year.
APPLE INC: iPhone 4 Owners Can Claim $15 Payment in Antenna Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AppleInsider reports that legal notices began arriving with iPhone
4 owners on March 29, informing them that they can receive $15 if
they refused to take a free case from Apple as a result of a
class-action settlement.
It was first announced in February that Apple had settled a class-
action lawsuit over reception concerns with the iPhone 4 antenna.
The settlement offers users either a free iPhone bumper case,
which the company sells for $29, or they can instead opt to
receive $15 in cash.
Apple said in a statement that the settlement relates to a "small
number" of users who experienced reception issues with the iPhone
4, but didn't take advantage of the free case program the company
offered for a limited time in 2010.
Even though the iPhone 4 free bumper case program technically
ended on Sept. 30, 2010, Apple quietly still offered free cases
after that deadline to customers who contacted AppleCare support
with reception issues. Those involved in the lawsuit only gain
the new option of accepting $15, which is about half the value of
the bumper case.
iPhone 4 owners were notified of the settlement in an e-mail sent
out on March 29. Customers are a "class member" of the suit if
they are a U.S. resident who is or was the original owner of an
iPhone 4 as of February 17, 2012.
"The settlement will provide a $15 cash payment if you are a
United States resident who is or was the original owner of an
iPhone 4, experienced antenna or reception issues, and satisfy
other requirements explained below," the note reads. "The United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
authorized this notice. The Court will have a hearing to consider
whether to approve the settlement so that the benefits may be
paid."
Those who would rather receive a free case from Apple can visit an
official support page on the company's Web site. They are
eligible to request a free black iPhone 4 Bumper from an
Authorized iPhone Service Provider.
Those who would rather receive the $15 cash payment must receive a
detailed notice and claim form package. Customers can call 1-877-
417-7234 or go to http://www.iPhone4settlement.comto get one.
"The lawsuit claimed that the iPhone 4's signal quality attenuates
when users handle the phone and that Apple engaged in
misrepresentations regarding the phone," the note reads. "Apple
denies all allegations and is entering into this settlement to
avoid burdensome and costly litigation. The settlement is not an
admission of wrongdoing."
To obtain a cash payment, customers must submit the claim form on
or before August 28, 2012. Those who do not claim a cash payment
within this time period lose their right to obtain this benefit.
ATLANTIC BULLION: Faces Class Action
------------------------------------
David Dykes, writing for The Greenville News, reports that two
lawsuits, including a class-action complaint, have been filed
against Easley-based Atlantic Bullion & Coin Inc. and the
company's owner, Ronnie Gene Wilson.
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Still Defends Securities Suit in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc. continues to defend itself against a securities
class action complaint in Tennessee, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
On May 12, 2010, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of
the Company's common stock. On September 17, 2010, an Executive
Vice President of the Company was added as a party to the lawsuit.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of
costs and attorneys' fees and other equitable relief. No class
has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management
cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company. There are significant uncertainties involved in any
purported class action litigation. Although it is not possible to
predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to the litigation, management is currently of the opinion
that the outcome of the lawsuit will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position
or results of operations.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest annual
report.
BancorpSouth, Inc. -- http://www.bancorpsouth.com/--is a
financial holding company incorporated in 1982. Through its
principal bank subsidiary, BancorpSouth Bank, the Company conducts
commercial banking and financial services operations in
Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana,
Florida, Missouri and Illinois. At December 31, 2011, the Company
and its subsidiaries had total assets of $13.0 billion and total
deposits of $11.0 billion.
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Unit Still Defends Consumer Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, Inc.'s bank subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a consumer suit relating to overdraft fees in Florida,
according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.
On May 18, 2010, the Bank was named as a defendant in a purported
class action lawsuit filed by two Arkansas customers of the Bank
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
The suit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were
charged and the policies related to posting order of debit card
and ATM transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas'
consumer protection statute. The case was transferred to pending
multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. No class has been certified and, at
this stage of the lawsuit, management of the Company cannot
determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company. There are significant uncertainties involved in any
purported class action litigation. Although it is not possible to
predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion
that the outcome of the lawsuit will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position
or results of operations. However, there can be no assurance that
an adverse outcome or settlement would not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations for a
given fiscal period.
No updates were reported in the Company's annual report filing.
BancorpSouth, Inc. -- http://www.bancorpsouth.com/--is a
financial holding company incorporated in 1982. Through its
principal bank subsidiary, BancorpSouth Bank, the Company conducts
commercial banking and financial services operations in
Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana,
Florida, Missouri and Illinois. At December 31, 2011, the Company
and its subsidiaries had total assets of $13.0 billion and total
deposits of $11.0 billion.
BP: Accuses Gov't. of Withholding Documents on Oil Spill Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that BP
attorneys have filed new court papers accusing the United States
of withholding more than 10,000 documents concerning flow
estimates of the broken Macondo well during the 2010 oil spill.
"It seems that the United States is trying to invoke the
'deliberative process' privilege to protect documents that appear
to relate, among other things, to its various prior flow rate
measurements and calculations," according to the 21-page document,
filed on March 29 by BP attorney Don Haycraft.
"Of the very large number of documents the United States has tried
to protect under the guise of the deliberative process privilege
(more than 80,000 in all), BP has tentatively identified more than
10,000 that, based upon the descriptions provided in the
government's privilege logs and the identity of the governmental
entity that withheld the document appear to relate to flow rate
issues," the motion continues.
According to the government's final estimate delivered Aug. 2,
2010, 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled from the broken riser
pipe of the Deepwater Horizon during the 87 days the well gushed
into the Gulf of Mexico. That estimate accounted for a 10 percent
variation based on a collaboration of scientists from various
institutions and disciplines.
More recent federal documents have placed the estimated spill at
4.1 million barrels.
BP agreed on March 2, 2012, to pay about $7.8 million to cover
personal injuries and other damages from the oil spill.
But that settlement does not address the fines BP will still face
for oil pollution under the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
The basic fine BP will face under the Clean Water Act is $1,100
per barrel of oil. If the court finds gross negligence, however,
that penalty can go as high as $4,300 per barrel of oil, or $17.6
billion, using the recent estimate of 4.1 million spilled barrels.
Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle declined to comment on
oil spill estimates.
A copy of the BP's Initial Brief and Document Identification
Regarding Deliberative Process Privilege in In re: Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on
April 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.), is available at:
http://is.gd/nlkqlc
CELL THERAPEUTICS: July 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven on March 30 issued a statement regarding the proposed
settlement of the Cell Therapeutics, Inc. class action.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONAT
SEATTLE
In re CELL THERAPEUTICS, INC.CLASS ACTION LITIGATIONThis Document
Relates To: All Actions
Master Docket No. C10-414 MJP(consolidated with Nos. C10-480 MJP
and C10-559MJP)CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
To: All persons and entities who purchased the common stock of
Cell Therapeutics, Inc. between March 25, 2008 and March 22, 2010,
both dates 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 Western District of Washington (the
"Court"), dated March 16, 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 Cell
Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Louis A. Bianco, and Craig W.
Philips.
A Settlement Hearing will be held before the Hon. Marsha J.
Pechman, United States District Judge, at the United States
Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington 98101, at 1:30
PM on July 20, 2012 in order: (1) to determine whether the Court
should grant certification to the Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3); (2) to determine whether the Settlement
consisting of $19,000,000 in cash should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class and the proposed Judgment
entered; (3) 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; (4) to determine whether any
applications for attorneys' fees or expenses to Plaintiffs'
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 Cell Therapeutics, Inc.
between March 25, 2008 and March 22, 2010 (both dates 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 July 28, 2012, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery. A Proof of Claim is being sent with
the Notice. If you are a Class Member and need an additional
Proof of Claim, copies may be obtained by telephoning the Claims
Administrator at 877-519-0810 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 described, you may
request to be excluded, in the manner specifically set forth in
the full Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"),
no later than June 15, 2012. If you are a Class Member, you may
make a written objection to the Settlement. 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 June 15, 2012.
The procedures which MUST be followed for Class Members to request
exclusion from the Class or to object to the settlement, the Plan
of Allocation or application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses are set forth in full in the Notice. You are urged to
obtain a copy of the Notice, which includes, among other things, a
description of: (1) the litigation in the Action prior to the
settlement; (2) the terms of the proposed settlement; (3) the
benefits of the settlement to the Class; (4) the Plan of
Allocation for the proceeds of the settlement; (5) the rights of
Class Members; (6) the release of claims against defendants Cell
Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Louis A. Bianco, and Craig W.
Philips, and their Related Parties; (7) the application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (8) additional details
concerning the Settlement Hearing, excluding oneself from the
Class and/or objecting to the settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and/or the application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
This is only a summary notice. The full notice may be accessed
at: http://ww.gcginc.com
Dated: March 16, 2012
Marsha J. Pechman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CHICAGO CITY: Sued Over Prosecution Without Licensed Attorneys
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Street Partners, LLC, a/k/a PMD, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. City of Chicago, a municipal
corporation, City of Chicago Department of Administrative
Hearings, Patricia Jackowiak, Director, City of Chicago Department
of Administrative Hearings, City of Chicago Department of Streets
& Sanitation, Thomas G. Byrne, Commissioner of City of Chicago
Department of Streets & Sanitation, Buildings, Case No. 2012-CH-
10860 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 26, 2012) alleges that the
city of Chicago and its various departments and agencies violated
and continue to violate Illinois law by initiating, appearing and
prosecuting actions before the Department of Administrative
Hearings without a licensed attorney.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants also violated due
process of law by engaging in what is essentially a shakedown by
offering respondents the minimum fine for a plea of guilty and
entering greater fines should they be liable after a contested
hearing. The Plaintiff points out that this practice violates due
process by penalizing litigants for exercising their rights to a
contested hearing before the Department of Administrative
Hearings.
Stone Street is an Illinois limited liability company and is the
owner of the property commonly known as 34 East Oak Street, in
Chicago, Illinois.
The City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation. The
Department of Administrative Hearings is a department of the City
and is responsible for conducting administrative hearings in
accordance with its rules and regulations, the Municipal Code of
the City of Chicago and due process. Ms. Jackowiak is the
Director/Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Department of
Administrative Hearings. The City of Chicago Department of
Streets & Sanitation is a department of the City. Mr. Byrne is
the Commissioner of the Department of Streets & Sanitation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard F. Linden, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD LINDEN
420 West Grand Ave., #4B
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 590-0211
- and -
Joel L. Lipman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOEL L. LIPMAN
3104 West Touhy Avenue
Chicago, IL 60645
Telephone: (773) 338-4117
E-mail: info@jlipmanlaw.com
- and -
Peter V. Bustamante, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER V. BUSTAMANTE
150 North Michigan Ave., #690
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 346-2072
E-mail: pvbust@bustamantelaw.com
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces More Antitrust Suit Over Wire Harness
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lamson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Delphi Automotive LLP; Denso Corporation; Denso
International America, Inc.; Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.; Lear
Corp.; Leoni LG; Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.; S-Y Systems
Technologies GmbH; Yazaki Corp.; and Yazaki North America Inc.,
Case No. 3:12-cv-01511 (N.D. Calif., March 26, 2012) arises out of
an alleged conspiracy extending from at least January 1, 2000,
through at least January 1, 2010, to rig bids for, and to fix,
raise, stabilize, and maintain prices, of automotive wire
harnesses sold indirectly to the Plaintiff and other Class
members.
During the Class Period, the Defendants and their co-conspirators
conspired to illegally restrict competition in the market for
Automotive Wire Harnesses, specifically targeting indirect
purchaser consumers and affecting billions of dollars of commerce
throughout the United States of America, including California, Mr.
Lamson contends. He asserts that the conspiracy included
communications and meetings, in which the Defendants agreed to
eliminate competition and to rig bids for, and to fix the prices
of Automotive Wire Harnesses.
Mr. Lamson is a resident of California. During the Class
Period, he purchased one or more Automotive Wire Harnesses in
California, indirectly from one or more of the Defendants, for end
use and not for resale.
Delphi, Lear and Denso International are Delaware corporations,
while Denso Corp., Furukawa, Sumitomo and Yazaki Corp. are
Japanese corporations. Leoni and S-Y Systems are German
corporations. Yazaki North America is a Michigan corporation.
The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Automotive Wire
Harness Systems throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mario N. Alioto, Esq.
Lauren C. Russell, Esq.
TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT LLP
2280 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 563-7200
Facsimile: (415) 346-0679
E-mail: malioto@tatp.com
laurenrussell@tatp.com
- and -
Joseph M. Patane, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. PATANE
2280 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 563-7200
Facsimile: (415) 346-0679
E-mail: jpatane@tatp.com
DYNEGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Icahn Takeover
----------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders
sued Dynegy and Carl Icahn in a federal class action, claiming
they failed to reveal that a wholly owned subsidiary fraudulently
transferred one of Dynegy's indirectly owned subsidiaries to the
energy giant, and that when the truth was revealed, Dynegy's stock
price dropped from $5.99 to 76 cents.
Lead plaintiff Charles Silsby sued Dynegy, its CEO Robert Flexon,
CFO Clint Freeland and billionaire investor Carl Icahn, Dynegy's
largest shareholder, accusing them of violating the Securities
Exchange Act.
Dynegy provides wholesale power to six states, in the Midwest, the
Northeast and the West Coast, according to the company Web site.
Dynegy, the third-largest U.S. independent power producer, agreed
to be acquired for $665 million by Icahn Enterprises after
shareholders rejected a lower bid from the Blackstone Group in
2010.
"Throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose that
Dynegy's wholly owned subsidiary fraudulently transferred direct
ownership in one of Dynegy's indirectly owned subsidiaries
directly to Dynegy," the complaint states.
"After the truth regarding Dynegy's acquisition was disclosed to
the public, unsuspecting investors watched the price of Dynegy's
common stock drop from a class period high of $5.99 per share to
$0.76 on March 9, 2012, a decline of approximately 87 percent."
Mr. Silsby, who seeks to represent all investors who bought Dynegy
stock at artificially high prices between Sept. 2, 2011 and
March 9, says he suffered "devastating losses" as a result of
Dynegy's fraud.
He claims that Dynegy used its wholly owned subsidiary, Dynegy
Holdings LLC, to acquire direct ownership of its indirectly owned
subsidiary, Dynegy Coal Holdco.
"Icahn, through various corporate entities, controlled
approximately 14.8 percent of Dynegy's outstanding shares and
appointed two directors, Vincent J. Intrieri ('Intrieri') and
Samuel Merksamer ('Merksamer'), to the Dynegy and DH Board of
Directors," the complaint states. "When DH began having problems
meeting its debt obligations, and thereby threatened the value of
Icahn's equity holdings in Dynegy, the Dynegy Board created the
Finance and Restructuring Committee ('FRC'), headed by Intrieri
and Merksamer, to reorganize DH's debt."
Mr. Silsby says Dynegy announced it acquired Coal Holdco in a
Sept. 2, 2011 press release which misrepresented the value of the
acquired equity stake to be $1.25 billion, and camouflaged
Dynegy's true financial situation.
"The aforementioned statement was false and materially misleading
when made because the defendants failed to disclose that (1) DH
was insolvent or on the brink of insolvency at the time of the
transaction; (2) the value of the 'undertaking' was substantially
less than $1.25 billion; and (3) that the acquisition of the
direct ownership of Coal Holdco was therefore an improper
fraudulent transfer," according to the complaint.
Dynegy and four of its wholly owned subsidiaries filed for
bankruptcy in November.
"Subsequently, on March 9, 2012, the examiner in the DH bankruptcy
proceeding published a report, the contents of which are
incorporated by reference herein, which disclosed that Dynegy
improperly acquired Coal Holdco through a fraudulent transfer,"
the complaint states. "On this news, the company's common stock
declined $0.42 per share, or approximately 35 percent, to close on
March 9, 2012 at $0.76 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
"At all relevant times, Dynegy's stock was traded on the NYSE. As
described above, defendants' material misrepresentations and
omissions had the effect of creating and maintaining an
artificially inflated price for Dynegy's stock. Those
misrepresentations and omissions that were not immediately
followed by an upward movement in the company's stock price served
to maintain the share price at artificially inflated levels by
maintaining and supporting a false positive perception of Dynegy's
business, operations, performance and prospects.
"Defendants had a duty to promptly disseminate accurate and
truthful information with respect to the company's financial and
operational condition or to cause and direct that such information
be disseminated, and to promptly correct any previously
disseminated information that was materially misleading to the
market. As a result of their failure to do so, the price of
Dynegy common stock was artificially inflated during the class
period, directly causing plaintiff and the class to suffer damages
when the truth eventually emerged.
"Defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions in
their SEC filings and other public statements during the class
period directly caused losses to plaintiff and the class. On the
strength of these false statements, the company's stock price was
artificially inflated to a class period high of $5.99 per share on
Sept. 16, 2011.
"As the truth began to emerge regarding the nature of Dynegy's
acquisition of Coal Holdco, the price of Dynegy stock declined as
the market processed each set of previously undisclosed facts.
Each such disclosure removed a portion of the artificial inflation
in the price of Dynegy's common stock and directly caused
plaintiff and other class members to suffer damages. On March 9,
2012, Dynegy's common stock had declined to a close of $0.76 per
share -- a decline of approximately 87 percent per share from its
class period high."
Mr. Silsby seeks class certification, rescission and compensatory
damages for violations of the Securities Exchange Act.
He is represented by:
Richard Gonnello, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI
369 Lexington Avenue 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
FACEBOOK INC: Branch McMaster Files Class Action Over Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Branch McMaster LLP has filed a Class Action in The Supreme Court
British Columbia on behalf of British Columbia residents who are
Members of Facebook and whose name, portrait, or both have been
used by Facebook in a 'Sponsored Story'.
The lawsuit was initiated by a Plaintiff who alleges that her name
and portrait were used in connection with a "Sponsored Story" as
an implied endorsement of a third party advertiser's product or
service without her consent.
The lawsuit alleges that since January 25, 2011, Facebook displays
Facebook members' names or portraits in Sponsored Stories
advertising or promoting goods or services without consent of the
Facebook members, and does not compensate them for the use of
their names or portraits in Sponsored Stories advertising or
promoting any goods or services.
Unlike traditional advertising including that previously used by
Facebook, a Sponsored Story uses a Member's name or portrait to
endorse goods or service of a third-party advertiser to that
Member's Friends, as follows:
a. When a Member engages in certain activities within the
Web site, such as clicking the Like Button in connection with a
Sponsor or its goods or services or Page, Checking In to a
physical location linked to Sponsor, or using an application or
App connected with a Sponsor, Facebook may generate a Sponsored
Story;
b. The resulting Sponsored Story displays the Member's portrait or
name beside and in connection with the Sponsor's advertisement or
logo, and contains a purported endorsement by the Member in
relation to the Sponsor or its goods or services; and
c. Each Sponsored Story featuring a Member's portrait or name and
purported endorsement of an advertised good or service is
published to some or all of that Member's Friends on Facebook.
Through Sponsored Stories, Facebook transforms the character of a
Member's actions in clicking the Like Button, Checking In to a
location or using an App into an endorsement of goods or services
by the Member which is then published by Facebook to the Member's
Friends. In so doing, Facebook authors and creates a unique and
new advertisement through the rearrangement of text and images
which then features the Member as an endorser, marketer or
advertiser of a third party good or service to his or her
"Friends".
In marketing Sponsored Stories to third party advertisers,
Facebook states that recommendations of friends have a powerful
influence on consumer interest and purchase decisions. The
lawsuit alleges that Facebook receives significant revenue from
its Sponsored Stories advertising.
The lawsuit also alleges that Facebook does not give notice to
Members that their names or portraits are being used in connection
with a Sponsored Story or that Facebook is depicting that Member
as endorsing a particular good or service. In other words, other
Members may view advertisements, including Sponsored Stories,
purportedly endorsed by a Member who is unaware that his or her
name or portrait is being used in connection with that
advertisement. In addition, it is alleged that Facebook does not
allow Members to either limit or altogether block the appearance
of their names or portraits in connection with a Sponsored Story.
Similar claims are also being filed in Saskatchewan and in
Manitoba.
Facebook members in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba who
wish to participate in the proposed class actions can obtain more
information at http://www.branmac.com
Or contact:
Luciana P. Brasil, Esq.
Branch McMaster LLP
Telephone: (604) 654-2960
E-mail: lbrasil@banmac.com
FUTENMA: Okinawa Residents File Class Action Over Aircraft Noise
----------------------------------------------------------------
TASS reports that more than 3,000 Okinawa residents have brought a
collective claim to court over flights by planes from the US base
Futenma which is located in the area.
The plaintiffs also seek $61 million compensation in moral and
physical damages.
They say that they have developed psychic disorders and their
hearing has worsened because of the sound of aircraft constantly
humming overhead.
Tokyo and Washington have been in talks about re-locating the
base.
HAPPY SHIRTS: Recalls 9,000 Toy Truck Gifts Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Happy Shirts, of Honolulu, Hawaii, announced a voluntary recall of
about 9,000 toy truck gifts with boy's t-shirts. Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
Connections in the toy trucks battery compartment can smolder or
catch the trucks on fire, posing a fire and burn hazard to
consumers.
Happy Shirts has received one report of a toy truck catching fire
and three reports of toy trucks smoldering when batteries were
inserted. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves Big Movers Super Car toy trucks that were
gifts with the purchase of Big Movers t-shirts. The 4-inch long
blue trucks have oversized tires and a flashing light on top and
were sold with a yellow, red and blue logo on the hood. The navy
t-shirts were sold in boys' sizes S, M and L. Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12140.html
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Kohl's stores nationwide and www.Kohls.com between
February 2012 and March 2012 for about $20.
Consumers should immediately take the toy trucks from children and
remove the battery. Consumers can contact Happy Shirts for
instructions on returning the truck for a refund. For additional
information, please contact Happy Shirts toll-free at (855) 354-
2779 between noon and 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time (9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Hawaii Time) Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.happyshirts.com/
HEALTH MGMT: Faces Two Securities Lawsuits in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Health Management Associates, Inc. is defending itself against two
lawsuits in Florida alleging violations of securities laws,
according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.
On or about January 25, 2012, Health Management, certain of its
executive officers and one of its directors were named as
defendants in an action entitled Miklen Sapssov v. Health
Management Associates, Inc. et al., which was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 2:12-CV-
00046). The action purports to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period July 27, 2009 through January 9, 2012. The plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that Health Management and the other
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements in
certain public disclosures regarding our business and financial
results. The plaintiff alleges that the Company's financial
performance was based, in part, on improper billing practices. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. A substantially similar
purported class action lawsuit, entitled Norfolk County Retirement
System v. Health Management Associates, Inc., et al., was filed
against the same defendants on or about February 2, 2012 in the U.
S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 8:12-CV-
00228).
The Company intends to vigorously defend Health Management against
the allegations in these matters. Because the lawsuits are in
their early stages, the Company is unable to evaluate their
outcome or determine the potential impact, if any, that could
result from their final resolution.
Health Management Associates, Inc. -- http://www.hma.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the operation of general
acute care hospitals and other health care facilities in non-urban
communities in the United States. Its hospitals provide services,
including general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics,
emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic care,
coronary care, and pediatric services. The company also offers
outpatient services, such as one-day surgery, laboratory, x-ray,
respiratory therapy, cardiology, and physical therapy. As of
December 31, 2011, the company operated 66 hospitals with a total
of 10,330 licensed beds in non-urban communities in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. The Company was founded in
1977 and is based in Naples, Florida.
HERTZ CORP: Calif. Tourism Fees Suit Stayed, Parties May Settle
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against Hertz Corporation relating to
California tourism assessment charges has been stayed as parties
engage in settlement discussions, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
The putative class action was brought by Michael Shames and Gary
Gramkow against The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA,
Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast
Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and
Caroline Beteta.
Originally filed in November 2007, the action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and plaintiffs claim to represent a class of
individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from a
defendant at airports located in California after January 1, 2007.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants agreed to charge consumers a
2.5% tourism assessment and not to compete with respect to this
assessment, while misrepresenting that this assessment is owed by
consumers, rather than the rental car defendants, to the
California Travel and Tourism Commission (CTTC). Plaintiffs also
allege that defendants agreed to pass through to consumers a fee
known as the Airport Concession Fee, which fee had previously been
required to be included in the rental car defendants' individual
base rates, without reducing their base rates. Based on these
allegations, the amended complaint seeks treble damages,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs. Plaintiffs dropped their claims against Caroline Beteta.
Plaintiffs' claims against the rental car defendants have been
dismissed, except for the federal antitrust claim. In June 2010,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of the plaintiffs' antitrust case against the CTTC
as a state agency immune from antitrust complaint because the
California Legislature foresaw the alleged price-fixing conspiracy
that was the subject of the complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently
filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking a rehearing and
that petition was granted. In November 2010, the Ninth Circuit
withdrew its June opinion and instead held that state action
immunity was improperly invoked. The Ninth Circuit reinstated the
plaintiffs' antitrust claims and remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings. All proceedings in the case are
currently stayed while the parties engage in settlement
discussions.
Hertz Corporation is a worldwide airport general use car rental
brand, operating from approximately 8,500 locations in
approximately 150 countries as of December 31, 2011. The Company
has been in the car rental business since 1918 and in the
equipment rental business since 1965.
HERTZ CORP: Class Certification Bid in "Sobel" Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nevada trial court has yet to rule on a motion to certify a
class in the lawsuit filed against Hertz Corporation relating to
airport concession recovery fees, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
On October 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia
Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada. The plaintiffs agreed to not pursue claims against
Enterprise initially and the case only proceeded against Hertz.
The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf
of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada
and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by
Hertz as part of their rental charges. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any
charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz
from quoting or charging those airport fees that are alleged not
to be allowed by Nevada law. The complaint also seeks attorneys'
fees and costs. Relevant documents were produced, depositions were
taken and pre-trial motions were filed. After the court rendered a
mixed ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment
and after the Lydia Lee case was refiled against Enterprise, the
parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a proposed
settlement. Although the court tentatively approved the settlement
in November 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the proposed settlement in May 2011. Since that
time, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification --
which the Company opposed -- and discovery has commenced again. A
separate action is proceeding against Enterprise, National and
Alamo.
Hertz Corporation is a worldwide airport general use car rental
brand, operating from approximately 8,500 locations in
approximately 150 countries as of December 31, 2011. The Company
has been in the car rental business since 1918 and in the
equipment rental business since 1965.
HERTZ CORP: Seeks to Remove Consumer Suit to Kansas Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Corporation's subsidiary is seeking the removal of a lawsuit
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, according to
the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.
On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in
the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The case was
subsequently transferred to the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas. The Fun Services matter purports to be a class action on
behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout the United States
who, on or after four years prior to the filing of the action,
were sent facsimile messages of advertising materials relating to
the availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who
did not provide express permission for sending such faxes. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
attorney's fees and costs. In August 2009, the court issued an
order that stayed all activity in the litigation pending a
decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in Critchfield Physical
Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto Group, Inc., another Telephone Consumer
Protection Act case. The Kansas Supreme Court issued its decision
in September 2011. Thereafter, the District Court of Johnson
County lifted the stay in the Fun Services case and issued a
scheduling order that addresses class certification discovery. In
February 2012, HERC filed a Notice of Removal with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas seeking to remove the
case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction.
Hertz Corporation is a worldwide airport general use car rental
brand, operating from approximately 8,500 locations in
approximately 150 countries as of December 31, 2011. The Company
has been in the car rental business since 1918 and in the
equipment rental business since 1965.
HERTZ CORP: Unit Still Defends Suit on Loss Damage Waiver Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Corporation's equipment rental subsidiary continues to
defend itself against a lawsuit in New Jersey relating to loss
damage waiver charges, according to the Company's February 27,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
On August 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against
Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. In November 2006, the
complaint was amended to add another plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, and
more claims. The Davis Landscape matter purports to be a
nationwide class action on behalf of all persons and business
entities who rented equipment from HERC and who paid a Loss Damage
Waiver, or "LDW," or an Environmental Recovery Fee, or "ERF." The
plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunction prohibiting
HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW and ERF charges
that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and claim that the
charges violate the Uniform Commercial Code. The plaintiffs also
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages with the return
of all LDW and ERF charges paid, attorneys' fees and costs as well
as other damages. The court has granted class certification,
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and the case is
in the discovery stages.
Hertz Corporation is a worldwide airport general use car rental
brand, operating from approximately 8,500 locations in
approximately 150 countries as of December 31, 2011. The Company
has been in the car rental business since 1918 and in the
equipment rental business since 1965.
ISTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim ISTA
Pharmaceuticals is selling itself too cheaply to Bausch & Lomb,
for $500 million or $9.10 a share, in Chancery Court.
A copy of Hutt v. ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
7367 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/30/SCA.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. McEvilly, III, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 482-3182
E-mail: jmcevilly@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
M/I HOMES: Remaining Claims in Drywall Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Remaining claims related to M/I Homes, Inc.'s use of defective
drywall in certain customers' homes are still pending.
On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the
Company's homes filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the
United States or alternatively in Florida, against the Company and
certain other identified and unidentified parties (the "Initial
Action"). The plaintiff alleged that the Company built his home
with defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain of
the defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compounds
capable of harming the health of individuals and damaging
property. The plaintiff alleged physical and economic damages and
sought legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and
attorney's fees. The Company filed a responsive pleading on or
about April 30, 2009. The Initial Action was consolidated with
other similar actions not involving the Company and transferred to
the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings (collectively, the "In Re:
Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation"). In
connection with the administration of the In Re: Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, the same
homeowner and eight other homeowners were named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints filed in and after December 2009
against certain identified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company), including one homeowner named as a
plaintiff in an omnibus class action complaint filed in March 2010
against various unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company) (collectively, the "MDL Omnibus Actions").
As they relate to the Company, the Initial Action and the MDL
Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seek
substantially the same relief. The Company has entered into
agreements with several of the homeowners named as plaintiffs
pursuant to which the Company agreed to make repairs to their
homes consistent with repairs made to the homes of other
homeowners. As a result of these agreements, the Initial Action
has been resolved and dismissed, and five of the eight other
homeowners named as plaintiffs in omnibus class action complaints
have dismissed their claims against the Company. The Company
intends to vigorously defend against the claims of the remaining
plaintiffs.
No updates were reported in the Company's February 27, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
Given the inherent uncertainties in the litigation, there can be
no assurance that the ultimate resolution of the MDL Omnibus
Actions, or any other actions or claims relating to defective
drywall that may be asserted in the future, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition, and cash flows.
M/I Homes, Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/-- and its subsidiaries
are builders of single-family homes. The Company was
incorporated, through predecessor entities, in 1973 and commenced
homebuilding activities in 1976. Since that time, the Company has
delivered over 78,000 homes.
MEGAPATH INC: Faces Class Action Over E-mail Delivery Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that MegaPath sold e-mail services
but concealed that "emails originating from its servers were being
refused, or 'bounced back,' by the most popular internet domains,"
including Gmail, Yahoo, Comcast and Hotmail, a business claims in
a federal class action.
A copy of the Complaint in Astor Professional Search, LLC v.
MegaPath, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02313 (E.D. Ill.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/30/Email.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
Aleksandra M. S. Vold, Esq.
SIPRUT PC
122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 588-1440
E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
avold@siprut.com
NATIONAL LAMPOON: June 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on March 29 disclosed that the United
States District Court Central District of California Western
Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common
stock of National Lampoon, Inc.:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF
NATIONAL LAMPOON, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 1, 2008
THROUGH DECEMBER 15, 2008, INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on June 18, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in courtroom 15
before the Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge
of the Central District of California, 312 N. Spring Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90012 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the
sum of $1,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys'
fees of one-third of the Settlement amount and reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $50,000, and an incentive payment of
$1,500 to each of the three lead plaintiffs, should be approved;
and (4) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice.
If you purchased common stock of National Lampoon, Inc. during the
class period from March 1, 2008 through December 15, 2008,
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this
Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency
and Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim
and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to National Lampoon
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA
19063 or by calling Tel: (866) 274-4004 or going to the Web site
-- http://www.strategicclaims.net
If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release no later than June 13, 2012, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written
exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in
the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to
be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion postmarked by June 13, 2012, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Notice and mailed or delivered such that it is
received by each of the following no later than May 29, 2012:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Central District of California
Western Division
312 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
Addison Adams, Esq.
Richardson & Patel LLP
10900 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: aadams@richardsonpatel.com
Attorneys for National Lampoon, Inc.
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Laurence M. Rosen
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: MARCH 12, 2012
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CONTACT: Strategic Claims Services
Telephone: (610) 565-9202
Fax: (610) 565-7985
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
Media, PA 19063
NEVSUN RESOURCES: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on March 28 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the common
stock of Nevsun Resources Ltd. between March 31, 2011 and February
6, 2012, inclusive.
A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com
Nevsun engages in the acquisition, exploration, development and
production of mineral properties, including the Bisha Project, a
gold, copper, silver and zinc mine in Eritrea, Africa. The
Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Nevsun's
mining activities at the Bisha mine produced a material amount of
waste rock, rather than gold ore; (ii) defendants knew or had
reason to know that the amounts of gold and gold ore recovered
from the Bisha mine were materially less than the Company's
reserve estimate; (iii) the Company was aware that its resource
model was materially defective because the actual amounts of gold
mined at Bisha did not reconcile with the Company's previously
disseminated reserve estimate; and (iv), Nevsun materially
overstated its gold reserves at the Bisha mine.
On February 7, 2012, Nevsun shocked investors when the Company
issued a press release which disclosed that the Company had
materially overstated gold reserves at the Bisha mine, slashed the
Company's 2012 gold production forecast for the mine, and
announced a downward revision of the mine's expected reserves. As
a result, Nevsun common stock plummeted nearly 31%, or $1.94 per
share.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than May 14, 2012, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-
9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our
Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com
OLD NATIONAL: Objects to Add'l. Plaintiffs in Checking Acct. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp disclosed in its February 27, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, that it is opposing the
addition of individual plaintiffs in a class action complaint over
checking account practices.
In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action
lawsuit, together with other banks, challenging Old National
Bank's checking account practices. The plaintiff seeks damages and
other relief, including restitution. Old National believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the plaintiff. At
this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management of
Old National to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss. No class
has yet been certified and discovery is ongoing. On December 8,
2011, the plaintiff sought leave to add additional individuals as
plaintiffs. Old National has objected and the Court has not yet
ruled, which has temporarily suspended action in the matter, other
than the aforementioned discovery exchanges.
Old National Bancorp -- http://www.oldnational.com/-- operates as
a holding company for Old National Bank, which provides financial
services to individuals and commercial customers primarily in
Indiana, eastern and southeastern Illinois, and central and
western Kentucky. The company was founded in 1834 and is
headquartered in Evansville, Indiana.
OLYMPIC ATHLETIC: Inks Settlement to Resolve Club Membership Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne-Marije Rook, writing for Ballard News-Tribune, reports that
lawyer Toby Marshall, who represents the lifetime member in the
class action lawsuit against the Olympic Athletic Club, said that
the parties have reached a settlement.
At the end of November 2011, lifetime members received a letter
stating that the club had been sold and the new owner did not
agree to service the lifetime memberships beyond December 31.
In December, some members came together and filed a class action
lawsuit against the club owners for refusing to honor lifetime
memberships that the club sold for thousands of dollars in the
1980s.
The settlement is on behalf of approximately 1,175 OAC members,
said Mr. Marshall. But in order to become final, the settlement
will have to be approved by the Court, a process that will take
four months or more.
In the meantime, however, members may continue to use the club.
If the settlement is approved, the OAC will honor the lifetime
memberships of the individuals who purchased their non-dues
memberships prior to July 26, 1987, for the life of the current
holder.
For individuals who purchased their non-dues memberships after
July 25, 1987, OAC will honor each such membership for another 14
years.
Individuals who signed new memberships after receiving termination
letters from the club will be given 90 days after approval of the
settlement to reinstate their old membership (as modified by the
settlement).
The 1,175 proposed class members will automatically be included in
the settlement, and benefit from it, if it is approved by the
Court. They do not have to do anything to accept or join in the
settlement.
The Defendants will pay the attorneys' fees and costs incurred by
Plaintiffs in bringing and settling the suit.
If the Court grants preliminary approval to the settlement,
detailed notice packets will be mailed out to all of the class
members.
"We anticipate this will take 6 to 8 weeks for the Court to reach
a preliminary decision. Final approval will not occur for another
4 or 5 months," said Mr. Marshall. "We are very pleased with the
settlement and believe it is in the best interests of the OAC
members."
PFIZER INC: Judge Certifies Celebrex, Bextra Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Pfizer
Inc. failed to block class-action status for investors who sued
the world's biggest drugmaker over claims it misled them about the
prospects of two chronic pain-relief drugs, Celebrex and Bextra.
U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in New York, who is
presiding over a series of investor suits filed in 2004, on
March 28 ruled that the main class of plaintiffs will be those who
purchased stock from Oct. 31, 2000, to Oct. 19, 2005.
The stockholders claimed New York-based Pfizer and its top
officers deliberately hid or misrepresented the results of studies
that suggested the drugs may have adverse cardiovascular effects.
"Over the past seven years, this court has become familiar with
both the parties to and the subject matter of this action, and so
believes that concentrating this litigation in this forum would
promote judicial economy," Judge Swain said in her 30-page ruling.
Judge Swain said there's an adequate similarity of claims that
would benefit from granting the request for class-action status,
which joins individual cases and allows plaintiffs to pool
financial and legal resources.
Heart Risks
Celebrex was linked to heart risks at high doses in research
released in November 2004, sending shares down as much as 7.6
percent on Nov. 4, 2004. Bextra was among the drugs that a U.S.
Food and Drug Administration reviewer identified as unsafe that
month.
Judge Swain hasn't ruled on the merits of the lawsuit.
"We are disappointed in the court's order and will continue to
vigorously defend the litigation," Chris Loder, a spokesman for
Pfizer, said in an e-mail. "It is important to note that the
order does not address the underlying merits of the litigation,
which we strongly dispute."
The cases are In Re Pfizer Inc Securities Litigation, 04- cv-9866,
05-MD-1688, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan).
PHILIP MORRIS: Loses Bid to Decertify Mass. Smokers Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to decertify a class that wants Philip Morris to
provide medical screening for early signs of lung cancer.
Kathleen Donovan and Patricia Cawley filed a 2006 federal class
action on behalf of Massachusetts smokers, seeking future damages
for medical monitoring because of their exposure to cigarette
smoke.
As relief, they wanted the court to supervise a screening program
involving low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) that could identify
and diagnose lung cancer in the early curable stages.
Harvard University medical professor Arnold Epstein and an
economist Gerry Oster, whom the class tapped as expert witnesses,
estimate that such a program would include 36,671 eligible
participants, run for 28 years, and have a total cost of over $187
million.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court informed the trial court
found that the class had a cognizable claim under state law for
medical monitoring based on the known increased risk of lung
cancer from exposure to cigarette smoke.
With that answer, the District of Massachusetts certified a class
of current smokers, age 50 and older, who have smoked Marlboro
cigarettes for at least 20 "pack years" and have not been
diagnosed with lung cancer. A pack year is the average number of
packs of cigarettes smoked per day, multiplied by the number of
years the person has smoked.
But Philip Morris moved to decertify the class after the Supreme
Court's ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, arguing that "several
intervening developments in the relevant law and facts require
reconsideration of the court's order certifying a class in this
action."
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper refused to decertify the class,
ruling that "the court's prior certification decision, which was
the result of a half-decade's worth of diligent advocacy by the
parties and thorough review by the court before the instant case
was transferred to this session, will stand."
In Dukes, the Supreme Court held that "monetary relief that is not
incidental to injunctive or declaratory relief cannot be certified
for class treatment," Judge Casper noted.
She continued: "At base, Philip Morris relies on Dukes less as a
post-certification change in controlling law that makes any
material difference in the analysis in this case and more as the
basis of for resurrecting an argument that was argued and
considered by the court: that 'the relief sought by plaintiffs,
even if it is 'equitable' in nature -- is clearly not 'injunction'
because there is no such thing as 'an injunction to pay money.'"
Quoting its prior decision, the court said: "The plaintiffs are
not asking for an injunction that orders the payment of money.
They are seeking a specific, equitable remedy. Simply because an
injunction requires the defendant to pay money does not convert it
into a monetary action."
Additionally, the class has not suggested that "a cash award of
$187,461,720 shared among the class members would provide relief
that would be as certain or complete as the LDCT program the
plaintiffs actually seek. Philip Morris overestimates the
importance of the fact that the Epstein/Oster report includes a
specific dollar estimate for the total cost of the program and
underestimates the importance of the fact that the specific dollar
amount identified in the report is only an estimate."
"Given the difficulty in precisely estimating the cost of relief
to the plaintiffs, any money damages award would run the risk of
overcompensating the plaintiffs, and the surest way for the court
to avoid any such inefficiency is to fashion relief through an
injunction rather than a money damages award," she added.
A copy of the Memorandum and Order in Donovan, et al. v. Philip
Morris USA, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-12234 (D. Mass.), is available
at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/30/Philip%20Morris.pdf
PREMERA BLUE CROSS: Must Cover Autism Therapy, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Carol M. Ostrom, writing for Seattle Times, reports that two
Seattle lawyers have been quietly pushing to force insurers to
cover therapy for autistic children.
Their latest success, against Premera Blue Cross and its
subsidiary, LifeWise Health Plan of Washington, involves "A.G.," a
13-year-old Renton boy with autism.
Last week, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Trickey ruled
that the insurer's blanket exclusion for treatments of
"developmental delay or neurodevelopmental disabilities" violates
public policy as spelled out in Washington's Mental Health Parity
Act.
The ruling is a preliminary injunction, applying only to A.G.'s
case while the case is being litigated, Judge Trickey said.
Lawyers for the boy and his parents have asked that the case be
certified as a class-action lawsuit.
Premera officials were not available for comment on March 29.
Ele Hamburger -- ehamburger@sylaw.com -- and Richard E. Spoonemore
-- rspoonemore@sylaw.com -- of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore have
filed seven class-action lawsuits in state and federal courts
against insurers, including Group Health Cooperative, Regence
BlueShield and Molina Healthcare, and state programs such as
Medicaid and the Uniform Medical Plan, which provides health
coverage to public employees.
The lawsuits seek coverage for Applied Behavioral Assessment
(ABA), a popular therapy for children with autism-spectrum
disorder, as well as other behavioral and neurodevelopmental
therapies, such as speech and physical therapy. Most of the
lawsuits are still under way.
"We are looking to fundamentally alter the way health insurers in
Washington cover therapy for autism" and other developmental
disabilities, Mr. Spoonemore said.
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA: Sued Over Seized Child Support Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aldo Santin, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that a
Gimli, Man., woman has initiated a class-action lawsuit against
the province for forcing mothers on welfare to turn over child
support payments.
Chantel Miyai is suing on behalf of her three young children and
the children of all single parents on social assistance in
Manitoba.
In court documents, Ms. Miyai states that child support payments
belong to the children, but the province's Department of Family
Services considers the money to be income for the parent and
deducts that amount from regular income assistance checks.
Ms. Miyai states that by taking the child support money, the
province is enriching itself at the expense of the children.
"Legally that money belongs to my children," Ms. Miyai said in an
interview with the Winnipeg Free Press. "What right does the
government have to take that money and use it for bridges and
streets and things?"
Lawyer Norman Rosenbaum said a Supreme Court of Canada case four
years ago ruled that child support payments are the "entitlement
of the child," adding that Manitoba is taking that money away from
them.
"I think this has been an historical wrong," Rosenbaum said. "The
government is profiting at the expense of the children, keeping
them in poverty."
In class-action suits, the case must first be certified by the
court as a class action, Rosenbaum said, adding the court must
conclude there is a systemic issue that affects a large number of
individuals. He said he expects to bring a motion for
certification in a couple of months.
Mr. Rosenbaum said he doesn't need any other single parents to
join the legal fight. Ms. Miyai said she hopes other single moms
will join the lawsuit.
"Some people will be afraid because they're so intimidated by
social assistance," Ms. Miyai said, adding the government staff
are disrespectful and often resort to using bully tactics. "Many
people will be afraid that they'll be cut off but this money
belongs to their children."
Even if the court rejects this issue as a class-action case,
Rosenbaum said Ms. Miyai could proceed with an individual action.
The allegations have not been proven in court. A statement of
defense has not been filed.
A provincial government spokesman said because the lawsuit was
just received, the government considers it to be inappropriate to
comment now.
Ms. Miyai said she was left in a difficult situation when her
boyfriend left her in July with two children aged five and 21
months and eight months pregnant with their third child.
Her ex-boyfriend started making monthly support payments of $750
and the province withheld that amount from her monthly income
assistance budget of $1,279.19.
"The monthly budget is difficult to live on as it is but when they
withheld my support payments, it made it really tough," Ms. Miyai
said. "I'm behind on all my bills. I'm spending the money my
parents set aside for university."
Ms. Miyai said her boyfriend stopped making support payments in
January and the province provided her with her entire allotted
budget for February -- but made her sign a document stating that
if her boyfriend ever resumes payments, she will turn over the
overdue amounts to the province.
"It's not right," Ms. Miyai said.
Mr. Rosenbaum said that he believes that what Manitoba is doing
now is common practice across the country and in the United
States.
Mr. Rosenbaum said if he's successful, the province will stop
treating child support payments as the mother's income and the
mother will receive the entire allotted amount of social
assistance. He said he wants the court to rule that: child
support payments in future will be directed to the Public Trustee
and held until the child turns 18; and the province must refund
Ms. Miyai's children, and all children affected by the
government's practice of taking child support payments, with
interest.
In court documents, Miyai states the province's seizure of the
child support payments is a violation of the children's Charter
rights, and wants the court to rule it unlawful.
ROYAL CANADIAN: Commissioner Takes Action After Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Quan, writing for Postmedia News, reports that as it faces
a class-action lawsuit alleging widespread sexual harassment and
discrimination in the workplace, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
is moving swiftly to find ways to boost female representation in
its upper ranks.
But in a candid interview on March 29, RCMP Commissioner Bob
Paulson said he's also got to make sure such efforts aren't
perceived as mere token appointments.
"If it is, then I'm dead in the water," he told Postmedia News.
"The women have been quite clear on this. 'Don't do us any
favours, commissioner. Just be fair to us. Don't be promoting
women because they're women. Promote them because they're
qualified.'"
Mr. Paulson was appointed late last year in the midst of an
unfolding scandal that saw several women come forward with
allegations of harassment in the workplace.
Last week, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in B.C.
Supreme Court on behalf of former RCMP Const. Janet Merlo,
alleging that she was the victim of repeated sexist comments,
sexual pranks and derogatory remarks.
Mr. Paulson declined to comment on the lawsuit, but he did say, "I
don't need a class-action suit to tell me the organization needs
to change. We're changing it."
His comments also come as two business professors -- Linda Duxbury
from Carleton University and Chris Higgins from the University of
Western Ontario -- are planning to release in the coming weeks the
results of a major study of work-life and employee well-being
issues among officers in 25 police agencies across Canada. Part of
the study examined issues related to gender and rank.
Mr. Paulson said he has been working over the last few months with
Deputy Commissioner Line Carbonneau, the highest-ranking woman on
the force, to develop a strategy for diversifying the RCMP's
senior ranks.
Mr. Paulson said if he is presented with a male candidate for
promotion to the executive level, which is the rank of inspector
or higher, he will automatically ask: "Why isn't this person who
you are asking me to authorize for commissioning . . . a qualified
and interested female?" Since Paulson took the helm of the iconic
force, six women have been promoted to the rank of inspector, he
said.
On the recruitment side, the force has set a goal of having 35% of
its new hires be women. Last month, Mounties in Yellowknife held
their first-ever women only career fair. Similar events targeting
women have been held in other provinces.
Mr. Paulson said on March 29 that one thing Ms. Carbonneau
emphasized to him was that fixing the organization requires much
more than just boosting the number of women in the force but
improving the overall experience of women in the organization.
To that end, Mr. Paulson said the force is developing better
mentorship opportunities for women in the lower ranks and "re-
invigorating" women's advisory committees in each division.
Mr. Paulson has previously said that all harassment complaints are
now being reported and monitored centrally in Ottawa.
Ms. Carbonneau has been away on medical leave and could not be
reached for comment.
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Unit Faces Lawsuit Over Franchise Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc.'s subsidiary is defending itself against a
purported class action for violations of New Jersey's Franchise
Practices Protection Act, according to the Company's February 27,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
The lawsuit was filed on January 19, 2012, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by Joseph A. McPeak
individually and allegedly on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals against S-L Distribution Company, Inc., a subsidiary
of the Company. The complaint alleges a single cause of action
for damages for violations of NJ's Franchise Practices Protection
Act. The Company is investigating the claim and cannot estimate
any possible loss at this time. The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend against the action.
On December 6, 2010, Lance, Inc. and Snyder's of Hanover, Inc.
completed a merger to form Snyder's-Lance, Inc. The Merger
created a national snack food company with well-recognized brands,
an expanded branded product portfolio, complementary manufacturing
capabilities and a nationwide distribution network.
The Company manufactures, markets and distributes a variety of
snack food products, including pretzels, sandwich crackers, kettle
chips, cookies, potato chips, tortilla chips, other salty snacks,
sugar wafers, nuts, and restaurant style crackers. It is
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
ST. JOE CO: Time to Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal Still Open
---------------------------------------------------------------
The time for a plaintiff to appeal the dismissal of a Florida
securities lawsuit against The St. Joe Company is still open, the
Company disclosed in its February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2011.
On November 3, 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against St. Joe and certain of its current and former officers
before Judge Richard Smoak in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Florida (Meyer v. The St. Joe Company et
al., No. 5:11-cv-00027). A consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the case on February 24, 2011, alleging various
securities laws violations primarily related to the Company's
accounting for its real estate assets. The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount in damages. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case on April 6, 2011, which the court granted without
prejudice on August 24, 2011. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on September 23, 2011. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on October 24, 2011. On January 12,
2012, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and
entered judgment in favor of St. Joe and the individual
defendants. On February 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to
alter or amend the judgment, which the Court denied on February
14, 2012. The time for plaintiff to appeal has not expired.
The St. Joe Company -- http://www/joe.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a real estate development company in
Florida. The company operates in four segments: Residential Real
Estate, Commercial Real Estate, Rural Land Sales, and Forestry.
The Company owns approximately 573,000 acres of land concentrated
primarily in northwest Florida. It has a strategic alliance with
Southwest Airlines Co. to facilitate the commencement of low-fare
air service to the northwest Florida Beaches International
Airport. It was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
WaterSound, Florida.
ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Saulton, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel,
reports that a settlement totaling more than $4 million was
approved on March 29 in a class-action lawsuit by former St.
Joseph's Hospital employees against the hospital's former parent
company.
Wood County Circuit Court Judge Robert Waters approved the $4.7
million settlement to be paid out to 626 employees.
Attorney Ginny Conley, who represented the members of the class
action, said the settlement was introduced to the court on
March 29 for approval. Attorney George Cosenza also represented
the class-action members.
"Judge Waters approved a $4.7 million settlement and that provides
all St. Joseph's employees entitled to sick leave were paid their
sick leave balances in full when they terminated their employment
with St. Joseph's and went over to Camden Clark in March 2011,"
she said. "We are pleased with the settlement and pleased Judge
Waters approved and thank the employees of St. Joe's in their
assistance in this litigation."
No one appeared in court to object to the settlement. Judge
Waters said all members of the class action were notified of the
settlement prior to the hearing.
Mr. Cosenza said there was no average payments because of
differences in pay and time accumulated.
Ms. Conley said the funds could be dispersed to the class action
members as early as this week. She said the funds were to be
transferred on March 30.
Ms. Conley and Mr. Cosenza said they agreed to lower their fee
from 33 percent to 22 percent to ensure all those in the class
action would collect the full amount owed to them. They said any
amount not collected after six months will go to cover additional
costs incurred in disbursing the settlement.
The class-action members will be sent a card informing of where
they will be able to collect their check from the settlement,
Ms. Conley said. There will be forms for them to sign.
Members will be notified they may have a tax liability from the
settlement, Mr. Cosenza said. Signature will issue 1099 forms, he
said.
Thomas Brandon, attorney for Signature Hospital, LLC, the former
parent company of St. Joseph's Hospital, said those collecting
$600 or less will probably not be sent the form.
In addition to the 626 class members, nine people who opted out of
the suit will be paid their accumulated sick leave, Mr. Brandon
said.
Mr. Cosenza said the case progressed through the court system
quickly.
"The lawsuit was filed within a couple of months after the
merger," he said. "We brought this to a settlement pretty quick;
this all came together very, very quickly here and we are glad
that it did and didn't drag on."
Last April, Mr. Cosenza and Ms. Conley filed suit against
Signature, the then parent company of St. Joseph's Hospital,
alleging Signature, doing business as St. Joseph's Hospital,
failed to compensate employees for their accrued sick leave
following the hospital's purchase and merger into Camden Clark
Medical Center.
In 2010, officials with West Virginia United Health System,
Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital, Signature and St. Joseph's
Hospital announced a deal to merge the two hospitals into the
Camden Clark Medical Center. In January 2011, Signature Hospital
Corp. announced its intent to sell its other two hospitals and
wind down operations by the end of that year.
On Jan. 28, Ms. Conley announced Signature has agreed to pay $4.7
million to resolve the class-action case involving the loss of
sick leave benefits. The sick leave is valued at $3.6 million,
Ms. Conley said.
STUART ARIFF: YCW Club Set to Claim AUD2.5MM in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Barrett, writing for The Armidale Express, reports that
Armidale's YCW Leagues Club is set to claim up to AUD2.5 million
in a class action over the administration of disgraced liquidator,
Stuart Ariff.
A late bid is being launched to allow the club to join a class
action against the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission (ASIC).
Mr. Ariff is currently serving a six-year jail term for defrauding
HR Cook Investments, a solvent company he was winding up.
But he had many other victims, some of whom are behind the class
action being mounted against ASIC for its inability/unwillingness
to act on information given to it about the Mr. Ariff's dealings.
Armidale Dumaresq deputy mayor Jim Maher, who campaigned to save
YCW during the five years of Mr. Ariff's tenure, remains hopeful
of the club joining the class action.
"I have spoken to several former board members and will assist
with the preparation of a claim so that it is lodged before the
deadline," he said.
Cr Maher said a valuation of the YCW club conducted in 1999
indicated its value at AUD1.2 million.
"Allowing for inflation/rise in valuations, it could have been
worth around $2 million as a going concern with liquor, poker
machine licenses and TAB license," he said.
"Up to a million could have gone missing under the administrator,
so the claim could be in excess of AUD2.5 million."
Cr Maher said if the class action goes ahead, there was a chance
of recompense for those who lost money, including YCW.
"The club would then need to decide what to go with the money, but
it could go a long way in a town like Armidale," he said.
After Mr. Ariff was sentenced in December, ASIC claimed its
decision to pursue criminal charges against him demonstrated its
commitment to deterring misconduct by insolvency practitioners.
But businesses who lost millions of dollars at the hands of
Mr. Ariff say ASIC took several years to act.
One of those business operators says a class action is the only
way to recover lost money.
"All the money that was stolen has been siphoned away and no-one,
no authority, no regulator is chasing it," he said.
"So therefore our only option is to look at where the problem
arose and the problem arose with ASIC's ineptitude."
SWISHER HYGIENE: May Face Class Action Over Annual Report Delay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gale, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that three class action law firms are trolling for potential
plaintiffs after Swisher Hygiene announced it would delay its
annual report and revise some of its 2011 quarterly reports.
Class action law firms routinely send out news releases,
announcing they are conducting investigations when companies
announce the potential restatement of their financial filings with
the SEC. The general legal theory is that some investors may have
based stock purchases on incorrect information.
Swisher's audit committee was still working on more precise
numbers, but a ballpark estimate is that net losses would increase
by a total of about $3.6 million for the first three quarters of
2011, the Charlotte, N.C.-based company said before the stock
market opened on March 28. The company indicated it was
conducting a thorough review and it's possible more issues
requiring adjustments could arise.
Swisher made a filing with the SEC to give it 15 days more to
submit its fourth quarter and full-year 2011 results.
Swisher shares closed on March 28 at $2.76, down 29 cents, or 9.5
percent, on volume of 3.92 million shares. That's about seven
times the average daily volume of 536,732 shares over the past
three months.
Shares were down 14 cents, or 5.07 percent, to trade at $2.62 at
12:19 p.m. on March 29 on volume of 1.09 million.
Washington, D.C.-based law firm Finkelstein Thompson LLC said it
wanted to have a discussion with shareholders about their rights.
The law firm said it has been appointed as lead or co-lead counsel
in dozens of shareholder class actions and recovered more than $1
billion for investors and consumers.
The Bensalem, Pa., law firm of Howard G. Smith said it was looking
for investors who purchased Swisher stock between May 16, 2011,
and March 28. The law firm has 17 other cases listed on its home
page.
TRUSTMARK CORP: Motions to Intervene in Stanford Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas trial court has yet to rule on motions to intervene and a
motion to dismiss in a class action lawsuit filed against
Trustmark Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary over the collapse
of the Stanford Financial Group, according to the Company's
February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
Trustmark's wholly owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank, has
been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse
of the Stanford Financial Group.
The purported class action complaint was filed against Trustmark
National Bank (TNB) on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott,
Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein
and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions unaffiliated with the Company as defendants. The
complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from
each of the defendants in the amount of fees received by each
defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford
(collectively, the "Stanford Financial Group") and (ii) damages
allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of
the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud
and/or aid and abet fraud arising from the facts set forth in
pending federal criminal indictments and civil complaints against
Mr. Stanford, other individuals and the Stanford Financial Group.
Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs did not quantify
damages. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal
court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United
States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the
Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford
related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit, and the motions to dismiss have been fully
briefed by all parties. The court has not yet ruled on the
defendants' motions to dismiss. In August 2010, the court
authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford
Investors Committee to represent the interests of Stanford
investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions
for the benefit of Stanford investors. In December 2011, the
Official Stanford Investors Committee filed a motion to intervene
in the action. In January 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to join
the Official Stanford Investors Committee as an additional
plaintiff in the action. Trustmark opposed these two motions.
The court has not yet ruled on the intervention and joinder
motions.
TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
The Stanford-related lawsuit is in its preliminary stages and has
been previously reported in the press and disclosed by Trustmark.
Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas. The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.
TRUSTMARK CORP: Unit Faces Suit Over Overdraft Fees in Miss.
------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary is defending
itself against a putative class action relating to overdraft fees,
according to the Company's February 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.
On December 2, 2011, TNB was sued in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by plaintiff Kathy D. White, on behalf of herself
and purportedly on behalf of all similarly situated customers of
TNB, in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Mississippi, Greenville Division. The case was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, Jackson Division, at the request of TNB; the
pleadings are a matter of public record in that court's files,
civil action 3:12 cv 00082 TSL MTP. The complaint challenges
TNB's practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds"
fees charged by TNB in connection with customer use of debit
cards, including TNB's order of processing transactions, notices
of charges, and calculations of fees. The complaint asserts
claims of breach of contract, breach of a duty of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, and unjust
enrichment. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution,
and injunctive and declaratory relief from TNB. Among other
relief, plaintiff's complaint demands reimbursement of fees
collected by TNB and seeks a prohibition against various means of
calculating and collecting such fees in the future.
Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas. The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.
VIBRAM USA: Sued Over False Claims on FiveFingers Running Shoes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Johnson, writing for Chicago Wellness Examiner, reports
that a class-action suit filed on March 29 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts claims Vibram USA Inc. and
Vibram FiveFingers LLC used deceptive and misleading statements
about the benefits of barefoot running.
Vibram FiveFingers are the minimalist shoes with individual toes.
They have been one of the hottest products in running circles for
several years. Sales have increased an average of 300% over the
last five years, with close to $70 million in 2011.
The lawsuit alleges that the health claims of the Vibram
FiveFingers are deceptive, that FiveFingers may increase the risk
of injury when compared to conventional running shoes, and that
there are no legitimate studies that support the FiveFingers
claims.
The lawsuit cites a study by the American Council on Exercise
which found that "heel-to-toe" runners who failed to change their
running style (half the participants in the study) when wearing
the FiveFingers had increased discomfort and risk of injury.
According to John P. Porcari, Ph.D., one of the study's authors:
"Buying these Vibrams and continuing to land your heels is
probably worse than wearing shoes because the Vibrams don't have
any cushioning. . . . People may need very explicit instruction
and time spent practicing how to land on the ball of the foot.
Otherwise, they may be doing themselves more harm. Simply
switching to Vibrams doesn't guarantee that a person is not going
to experience more injuries."
Vibram does state on their Web site (which is acknowledged in the
lawsuit) that switching to the FiveFingers does take time,
possibly over a year for some people. Their training plan for the
FiveFingers is longer than 13 weeks. The first two weeks are
wearing the shoes 1-2 hours per day (no running), and weeks 3-4
are running 10%-20% of your normal distance, no more than once
every other day, in the FiveFingers.
The Vibram FiveFingers are available in numerous Chicago area
stores, including Fleet Feet, Hanig's, Erehwon, Running Away
Multisport, REI, and Dick Pond Athletics.
VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Fuel Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that some Volvo cars in model
years 2001-05 had defective fuel pumps, and Volvo agreed to
replace them only in 19 "warm weather states," but not in
Wisconsin, a class action claims in Milwaukee County Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Mahalick v. Volvo Cars of North
America, LLC, Case No. 12CV003576 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milkwaukee
Cty.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/30/VolvoCA.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dean P. Laing, Esq.
Douglas P. Dehler, Esq.
Patrick G. McBride, Esq.
O'NEIL, CANNON, HOLLMAN, DEJONG & LAING S.C.
111 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 276-5000
E-mail: Dean.Laing@wilaw.com
doug.dehler@wilaw.com
Patrick.McBride@wilaw.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
35 East State Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
WALSH GROUP: Black Employees' Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on March 30
certified two classes of black construction workers to pursue
hostile-work-environment and disparate-impact claims against Walsh
Group.
A copy of the Opinion and Order in Bolden, et al. v. Walsh Group
d/b/a Walsh Construction Company, Case No. 06-cv-04104 (N.D.
Ill.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/30/Class.pdf
*********
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 * * *