/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120426.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 82 Headlines ADT CORP: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in ADT Dealer Litigation ADVANCED MEDICAL: App. Ct. Upholds Class Cert. in Anderson Suit APPLE CORP: Briefs for Settlement Conference Due Today BANK OF AMERICA: D&O Settle Shareholder Class Action for $20 Mil. BANK OF AMERICA: Class Action Settlement Challenged BOONE COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Local Sales Taxes BRASKEM SA: Appeals in Suits Over Work Breaks Remain Pending BRASKEM SA: Expects "Union of Workers" Suits to Be Judged by 2013 CAMTEK LTD: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal of "Lapiner" Suit CHASE HOME: Protection of Class List Upheld in "Pittman" Lawsuit CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Two Class Suits in North Carolina CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Oklahoma CHINA NATURAL: Gainey & McKeena, Egleston File Class Action CHINA NATURAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Still Pending COCHLEAR LIMITED: Sued in Ill. Over Defective Cochlear Implants CONSECO LIFE: Enters Into Tentative Class Action Settlement DAIRY PROCESSORS: May 1 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims DALLAS, TX: ICE Faces Class Action Over Ankle Monitors DELPHI FINANCIAL: Settles Merger-Related Suit for $49 Million DISCOVER CARD: DFS Faces TCPA-Violation Suit in California EME HOMER: Court Dismissed Class Claims vs. Parent in March GREEN BANKSHARES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending GREEN BANKSHARES: Two Class Suits Over CBF Transaction Resolved GREG MORTENSON: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Book HOME DEPOT: Sued for Denying Suitable Seating for Employees HORIZON LINES: Still Defends Class Suit Over Alaska Tradelane INTEGRATED SECURITY: "Grube" hCG-Related Suit vs. iSatori Stayed INTEGRATED SECURITY: iSatori Continues to Defend "Aviles" Suit KEYSPAN CORP: 2nd Cir. Upholds Mail Fraud Verdict on A. Bosgang LOOKSMART LTD: Settlement Fund in "Lane's" Suit Closed in June LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Wins Court Order to Prevent Asset Seizure MADISON-KIPP CORP: Class Action Likely to Include More Damages MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $45-Mil. as of March 1 Under Suits Deal MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Canadian Price-Fixing Suits NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Concussion Suit Lead Plaintiff Dies NEW ENERGY: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York PUBLIX: Managers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime RADWARE LTD: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded SAIC INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Over CityTime SEA STAR: Faces Antitrust Suit Following Class Action Settlement SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Awaits Rulings on N.Y. Class Suit Dismissal Bids THEGLOBE.COM INC: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded TOYOTA MOTOR: Some Acceleration Claims Tentatively Dismissed VERINT SYSTEMS: "Deutsch" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Israel VITA COCO: July 23 Deadline Set for Settlement Claim Form ********* ADT CORP: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in ADT Dealer Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The ADT Corporation is awaiting a supreme court decision with respect to plaintiffs' request for an appeal hearing on an appellate court ruling dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in a class action lawsuit filed in Colorado, according to the Company's April 10, 2012, Form 10-12B filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer connect fees that the Company had charged to its authorized dealers upon purchasing customer accounts. The investigation related to accounting practices employed by the Company's former management, which were discontinued in 2003. Although the Company settled with the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and related parties have filed lawsuits against the Company in the United States and in other countries, including a class action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, alleging breach of contract and other claims related to the Company's decision to terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002 and 2003. In February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict in the Company's favor dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key claims. Upon appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in the Company's favor in October 2011. The plaintiffs have requested that the Supreme Court of Colorado hear an appeal of the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled. The Company expects a favorable resolution of the class action lawsuit in Colorado. While it is not possible at this time to predict the final outcome of the Colorado lawsuit or other lawsuits stemming from dealer terminations, the Company does not believe these claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. ADVANCED MEDICAL: App. Ct. Upholds Class Cert. in Anderson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In an interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed a district court's certification of the class action lawsuit ANDERSON OFFICE SUPPLY, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS v. ADVANCED MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.A., and JEFFREY L. DRAKE, D/B/A DRAKE CHIROPRACTIC, Case No. 105,868. The lawsuit was filed in November 2009 in the Harvey County District Court, alleging that Advanced Medical violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when Business to Business Solutions, on the company's behalf, transmitted a fax advertisement to Anderson. The suit seeks monetary relief and an injunction against Advanced Medical. A copy of the Appellate Court's March 16, 2012 Order is available at http://is.gd/AtGGcwfrom Leagle.com. Counsel for Advanced Medical are: Lynn W. Hursh, Esq. Casey O. Housley, Esq. Gerald A. King, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel No: (816) 221-3420 Fax No: (816) 221-0786 E-mail: lhursh@armstrongteasdale.com chousley@armstrongteasdale.com gking@armstrongteasdale.com Counsel for Anderson Office are: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Barbara C. Frankland, Esq. GUNDERSON, SHARP & WALKE, LLP 5301 West 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel No: (713)221-2337 (for Sharp) (913)901-9099 (for Frankland) E-mail: dsharp@midwest-law.com bfrankland@midwest-law.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602-1233 Tel No: (312) 658-5500 - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com APPLE CORP: Briefs for Settlement Conference Due Today ------------------------------------------------------ Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple faces settlement talks early next week after striking a deal on April 23 in the antitrust class action over digital music products like iTunes. The order came shortly after Apple attorneys met with representatives for the consumers and resellers who claim Apple monopolized digital music and digital music players between 2006 and 2009 with its iTunes and iPod products. U.S. District Judge James Ware called for briefs "focusing on the issue of class damages" in preparation for a settlement conference set Tuesday, May 1. The meeting will carry into May 2 if necessary. The briefs are due today, April 26. Apple faces claims that its anticompetitive conduct caused consumers to overpay for iPods, in violation of the Sherman Act and California's Clayton and Cartwright Acts. The amended class action filed in 2007 claims that Apple used iPod software and firmware updates to prevent consumers from playing music purchased from non-Apple sources on iPods. Judge Ware certified the class of allegedly ripped-off resellers and consumers late last year. Class notices are due to be distributed May 8. Bonny Sweeney, Thomas Merrick, Alexandra Bernay and Carmen Medici of the San Diego firm Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd are lead counsel representing the designated lead plaintiffs, Somtai Troy Charoensak, Mariana Rosen and Melanie Tucker. Apple is represented by: Robert Mittelstaedt, Esq. Craig Stewart, Esq. David Kiernan, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 E-mail: ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com cestewart@jonesday.com dkiernan@jonesday.com A copy of the Order Re. Settlement Conference in The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-00037 (N.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/n2gVJy BANK OF AMERICA: D&O Settle Shareholder Class Action for $20 Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Fitzpatrick, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that current and former Bank of America Corp. directors and ex-Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis have agreed to a $20 million settlement in one lawsuit alleging shareholders were wronged during the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co., according to court documents. The proposed agreement, which would resolve claims that directors breached their fiduciary duty to the bank when they didn't inform investors about ballooning losses at the troubled New York securities firm, would not end all Merrill-related legal headaches for the Charlotte, N.C. lender. The U.S. District Court case is one of several similar suits pending before federal and state courts in New York and Delaware. A federal judge in the Southern District of New York, Kevin Castel, has to approve the $20 million settlement between the directors, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System and the Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System. Lawyers for plaintiffs in a similar case pending in Delaware are challenging the pact in the federal case. Judge Castel has asked the directors and plaintiffs in the federal case to show "why they should not be enjoined from consummating" the arrangement, according to a court document. The amount, $20 million, is small relative to the size of the claims because the pay out is designed to be covered by directors and officers liability insurance, said one person close to the case. The spate of Merrill-related cases are threatening to drag out a painful period for a bank still weighed down by the decisions it made during the financial crisis. Chief Executive Officer Brian Moynihan recently sat for a deposition in a separate class action case that alleges shareholders were misled about the Merrill losses before the $19.4 billion purchase was approved. Defendants in that case included Mr. Lewis, former chief financial officer Joseph Price and directors. The New York Attorney General's Office is pursuing a separate civil fraud suit relating to the Merrill takeover that began under former Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Defendants in that case include the bank, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Price. BANK OF AMERICA: Class Action Settlement Challenged --------------------------------------------------- United Press International reports that a settlement over a class- action lawsuit between Bank of America and two pension funds is being challenged by lawyers in another case, court papers say. Bank of America is reportedly settling the case with Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System and the Hollywood (Florida) Police Officers' Retirement System for $20 million, The New York Times reported. But lawyers for plaintiffs in a similar case in Delaware are saying the damages go as high as $5 billion. The New York case, essentially, is being settled safely, within the boundaries of BofA's insurance policies. The settlement would also eliminate any settlement in the Delaware case, the Times said. The lawsuits involve Bank of America's purchase of Merrill Lynch during the height of the financial crisis. The case has already gone through federal courts. The Securities and Exchange Commission reached a settlement of $33 million on the matter, which federal Judge Jed Rakoff refused to sign. Judge Rakoff challenged that settlement saying it was a slap on the wrist and would end up punishing shareholders, rather than those who made the decision to withhold information that should have been made available to shareholders when BofA bought Merrill Lynch. That would have made the shareholders victims twice, Judge Rakoff said at the time. Judge Rakoff later agreed to a settlement of $150 million in that case. In the current challenge of the New York settlement, court papers say lawyers for the pension funds have done little to make their case, deposing only two of BofA's 16 board members. In Delaware, lawyers have filed 48 depositions, having deposed all 16 of the bank's directors, the Times reported. BOONE COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Local Sales Taxes ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Barker, writing for Columbia Daily Tribune, reports that a lawsuit by an Adair County man that names Boone County as a defendant is seeking a refund of local sales taxes charged on motor vehicles purchased outside the state. Columbia attorney Danieal Miller filed the suit in Cole County on March 1 on behalf of Charles Cooper, and he is asking the court to certify it as a class-action lawsuit so other Missouri residents who have paid local sales taxes after registering a vehicle purchased outside Missouri can get their money back. The suit comes after a January Missouri Supreme Court decision, Street v. Director of Revenue, found that the Missouri Department of Revenue has been erroneously collecting local sales taxes on some motor vehicles purchased outside the state. Although it is unknown what the potential loss of revenue could be, absent those collections, the suit highlights how some Missouri counties could lose out on additional revenue without imposing a local use tax. In the state Supreme Court case, Craig Street of Greene County sued the Missouri Department of Revenue and argued that he had been illegally charged local sales taxes when he registered a boat, motor and trailer purchased in Maryland. The revenue department collects local sales taxes for counties and cities in Missouri when consumers register vehicles and boats with the state. It also has collected local sales taxes when purchases were made across state lines. The state Supreme Court, though, said Missouri's sales tax is limited to purchases within the state's borders, despite a provision of the state's sales tax law that says motor vehicle sales are "to be deemed consummated at the address of the owner." Unless a local government has a local use tax, which allows it to collect sales taxes on goods purchased outside its borders but used within it, the entity no longer could receive local sales taxes on motor vehicle registrations. In Missouri, more than 30 counties have a local use tax, but Columbia and Boone County don't, and neither do some of the state's other largest counties. Those counties -- St. Louis, Jackson and Greene -- also are named in Miller's suit. The Street ruling became effective March 21, and the Department of Revenue no longer remits sales taxes on vehicles purchased out-of- state to counties without a use tax. The state, however, has a use tax, so it can continue collecting on out-of-state purchases. A local use tax has been under discussion a little more in recent months as both Congress and some state legislators discuss a regime that could impose the same sales taxes on Internet sales as on physical retail sales. Some business groups and congressional lawmakers have worked to hash out a set of similar practices for states, known as the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement, which would standardize local sales tax collections to make it easier for online retailers to remit local sales taxes. Some Missouri lawmakers have pushed to sign onto the agreement, but in order for Boone County and Columbia to collect their share of revenue, they would have to adopt a use tax. Voters rejected a local use tax in Boone County in 1996 and in Columbia in 1996 and 1998. Mr. Miller's lawsuit doesn't worry Boone County Counselor C.J. Dykhouse much, but Mr. Dykhouse said it does illustrate a tax policy flaw that could create an incentive for people to purchase vehicles outside the state. "The fix would be to have a local use tax that complements the local sales tax," he said. "It's to our advantage that our car dealerships are not disadvantaged relative to other car dealerships across state lines." Boone County and the other parties named as defendants, including the Department of Revenue, argue in their responses to Miller's petition that his client has not sought a sales tax refund through an administrative appeal. The counties also argued that because they only passively receive sales tax remittances from the Department of Revenue and do not collect it themselves, they are not proper parties to the suit. Mr. Miller did not return phone calls seeking comment. "That's the whole problem with this lawsuit," Mr. Dykhouse said. "The county does not collect sales taxes. The county receives sales taxes collected by the Department of Revenue." BRASKEM SA: Appeals in Suits Over Work Breaks Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Appeals in the class action lawsuits commenced by the Union of Workers over work breaks remain pending, according to Braskem S.A.'s April 10, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In the third quarter of 2010, the Union of Workers in the Petrochemical and Chemical Industries in Triunfo (State of Rio Grande do Sul) filed class actions claiming the payment of overtime referring to work breaks and integration into base salary of the remunerated weekly day-off amounting to R$255,048,000. The proper defenses were presented for these actions and the Company, based on the opinion of the external legal advisors, does not expect losses arising from the outcome of these proceedings. The chances of loss are considered possible. The claims are in the fact finding and appeals phase and they are expected to be granted a final and unappealable decision in the last quarter of 2013. The Company says there are judicial deposits related to these claims. BRASKEM SA: Expects "Union of Workers" Suits to Be Judged by 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Braskem S.A. disclosed in its April 10, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that the class action lawsuits commenced by the Union of Workers are expected to be judged by 2013. In the second quarter of 2005, the Union of Workers in the Petrochemical and Chemical Industries in Triunfo (State of Rio Grande do Sul) lodged a number of class actions claiming overtime payment. For part of these actions, for which the claims amount to R$86,479,000, the chances of a loss are considered possible. For the remaining actions in progress, for which the claims amount of R$641,854,000, the chances of a loss are considered remote. All actions in progress are with the Superior Labor Court and Management expects them to be judged by 2013. One of these actions was awarded a final and unappealable decision in favor of the Company. The Company says there are judicial deposits related to these claims. CAMTEK LTD: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal of "Lapiner" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Camtek Ltd. disclosed in its according to the Company's April 9, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that Yuval Lapiner did not appeal the dismissal of his purported class action complaint. On March 7, 2008, a purported Class Action Complaint ("CAC"), Yuval Lapiner v. Camtek, Ltd. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 22, 2005, and December 20, 2006. Mr. Lapiner filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on January 2, 2009, naming the Company and certain of its directors and officers as defendants. It alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under, and breached fiduciary duties by making false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and press releases. The plaintiff seeked unspecified compensatory damages against the defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the CAC, as amended, on February 17, 2009, and the Court granted this motion on June 2, 2009. However, the Court gave plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, which he did when he filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC") on July 10, 2009. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and the court granted this motion on February 2, 2011. The Court, however, gave plaintiff leave to amend his complaint which he did when he filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on April 1, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the TAC and on August 31, 2011, the Court granted Camtek its third motion to dismiss and done so this time without giving the plaintiff leave to amend. Plaintiff did not appeal the court's judgment. CHASE HOME: Protection of Class List Upheld in "Pittman" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action complaint entitled Javon Pittman v. Chase Home Financing, LLC, Case No. 97321, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed a trial court order incorporating a version proposed by the defendant of a certain paragraph 4D of a class action settlement. A 2005 lawsuit alleges that Chase routinely failed to record notice, when its customers had satisfied their mortgages, within 90 days as required by Ohio law. The parties reached a class-wide settlement in 2009. Paragraph 4D of the class settlement deals specifically with the addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of those contained in the class provided by Chase to Pittman. Chase proposed a version of paragraph 4D of the class settlement, in which Pittman would be prohibited from using the class list information to contact the members regarding any future litigation against Chase, pursuant to a 2007 protective order. In August 2011, the trial court ordered the parties to abide by Chase's version of the proposal. The Appellate Court found that the trial court's decision to protect the class list from future solicitation was well within its sound discretion. A copy of the Apellate Court's March 15, 2012, Opinion is available at http://is.gd/thWsEufrom Leagle.com. Counsel for Mr. Pittman are: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Tel No: (440) 525-2763 (216) 206-6414 Fax No: (440) 352-3469 (216) 861-1403 E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- and -- Brian Ruschel, Esq. 925 Euclid Avenue, Ste. 660 Cleveland, OH 44114-1405 Tel No: (216) 621-3370 Counsel for Chase Home are: William H. Falin, Esq. Seamus J. McMahon, Esq. MOSCARINO & TREU, LLP The Hanna Bldg., Ste. 630 1422 Euclid Ave. Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel No: (216) 621-1000 Fax No: (216) 622-1556 E-mail: wfalin@mosctreu.com -- and -- Danielle J. Szukala, Esq. Leann P. Pope, Esq. BURKE, WARREN, MACKAY & SERRITELLA, P.C. 300 North Wabash Avenue, 22/F Chicago, IL 60611-3607 Tel No: (312) 840-7070 (for Szukala) (312) 840-7013 (for Pope) E-mail: dszukala@burkelaw.com lpope@burkelaw.com CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Two Class Suits in North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. disclosed in its April 10, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that it is facing two purported class action lawsuits in North Carolina. On April 4, 2012, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. and certain of its executive officers: McIntyre v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int'l, Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-213; and Albstein v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int'l, Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-215. The complaints generally allege that, during differing class periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements related to Chelsea's development of Northera(TM) (droxidopa) for the treatment of symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (NOH) and the likelihood of FDA approval. The class period alleged in the McIntyre complaint runs from November 3, 2008, and March 28, 2012, and the class period alleged in the Albstein complaint is between June 9, 2011, and February 17, 2012. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company says additional similar lawsuits might be filed. Chelsea and its officers believe all of the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against these claims. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Chesapeake Energy stock sank after Reuters reported last week that the company had loaned more than $1 billion to its CEO Aubrey McClendon, in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Deborah G. Mallow IRA SEP Investment Plan v. McClendon, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00436 (W.D. Okla.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenyatta R. Bethea, Esq. HOLLOWAY, BETHEA & OSENBAUGH, PLLC 3035 N.W. 63rd Street, Suite 102N Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Telephone: (405) 694-4469 E-mail: kbethea@hbolaw.com - and - John Halebian, Esq. LOVELL STUART HALEBIAN LLP 317 Madison Avenue 21st Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 500-5010 E-mail: jhalebian@lshllp.com - and - Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES 60 East 42nd Street 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 867-1156 E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com CHINA NATURAL: Gainey & McKeena, Egleston File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm on April 20 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of China Natural Gas, Inc. between March 10, 2010 and September 21, 2011, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 20, 2012. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. of Gainey & McKenna at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of the Egleston Law Firm at (212) 683-3400, or via e-mail at egleston@gme-law.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, as revealed through the restatements of the Company's 2009 and 2010 year-end financial statements, and the Company's 2010 and 2011 interim financial statements, Frazer Frost, LLP (now known as Frost, PLLC) and Friedman, LLP (the auditors of the Company's financial statements during the Class Period) materially misstated the Company's financial position and materially misstated facts regarding related party and other transactions. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of China Natural common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm. CHINA NATURAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- China Natural Gas, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit captioned Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., et al., according to the Company's April 2, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws. That action, captioned Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10-728, was filed on August 26, 2010, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff in Vandevelde asserts that the Company, Qinan Ji, Zhiqiang Wang, Donald Yang, David She, Carl Yeung and Lawrence Leighton violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, when the Company failed to disclose and properly account for a loan in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The complaint alleges that the Pledge to secure the Loan violated the Indenture for the Senior Notes and the warrant agreement relating to the warrants issued to Abax Lotus Ltd., giving the holder of those notes and warrants the right to declare a default under the Indenture. The complaint further alleges that, on August 20, 2010, the Company amended its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, to disclose the Loan and restate its financial statements in light of the note and warrant holder's right to declare a default under the Indenture, and that the announcement of this news caused the price of the Company's stock to drop by twenty percent. The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount to recover the losses purportedly suffered by the putative class as a result of that decline. The complaint also asserts claims against the individual defendants as controlling persons of the Company for violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 12, 2011, the Court entered an order appointing Robert Skeway, an individual investor, as lead plaintiff and approving his selection of lead counsel. Lead plaintiff and Raimundo Jo- Fung, another individual investor, who together seek to represent a class of all purchasers and acquirers of the Company's common stock between March 10, 2010, and September 21, 2011, filed an amended complaint on October 11, 2011. On December 12, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's counsel filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 2, 2012. The Company had until April 16, 2012, to file its reply brief with the court. CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Cintas Corporation is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into various service sales representative positions across all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan. Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano lawsuit. Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit, Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United States. The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African- American, Hispanic and female failure to hire into service sales representative positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The consolidated case was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos). On March 31, 2009, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an order denying class certification to all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits. Following denial of class certification, the Court permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed separately. In the Avalos case, the Court dismissed the remaining claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in that case after the denial of class certification. On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all similarly situated plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's summary judgment order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Appellate Court has made no determination regarding the merits of Davis' appeal. In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC has appealed the District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the EEOC's appeal. The Company says the litigation, if decided or settled adversely to Cintas, may, individually or in the aggregate, result in liability material to Cintas' consolidated financial condition or consolidated results of operation and could increase costs of operations on an ongoing basis. Any estimated liability relating to these proceedings is not determinable at this time. Cintas may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these and other lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 29, 2012. COCHLEAR LIMITED: Sued in Ill. Over Defective Cochlear Implants --------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, a father claims Cochlear Limited's ear implants failed inside his young daughter one month before the FDA recalled them for a manufacturing defect. Wyly Wade sued Cochlear Limited, of Australia, for its "Nucleus CI500 range of cochlear implant medical devices," which were recalled in September 2011. "Cochlear holds itself out as 'The leading global hearing solutions company,'" Mr. Wade says in the complaint. A cochlear implant is a surgically implanted medical device that provides deaf people with a sense of sound by processing sound into electrical impulses that are sent to the brain. Mr. Wade says his daughter, K.W., was deaf in both ears. "As a toddler, K.W. was medically evaluated for cochlear implants and determined to be an excellent candidate to receive cochlear implants," the complaint states. In June 2011, she was fitted with Cochlear Limited's implants in both ears. By September 2011, both of K.W.'s implants had failed and had to be surgically removed. "On or about September 14, 2011, the Australian government issued an urgent medical device recall and hazard alert in connection with the recalled devices," the complaint states. "The stated reason for the Australian governmental recall was that it followed a recent increase in the number of failures of CI512 cochlear implants in the Cochlear Nucleus CI500 range. According to the recall, the information available to the Australian government's Therapeutic Goods Administration was that less than one percent of the recalled implants had failed." In October 2011, the FDA issued a recall for the Cochlear Nucleus CI512 Implant: "According to the FDA's recall, the reason for the recall was that the recalled devices may shut down and cease to function." In December 2011, Cochlear Limited's CEO Chris Roberts released a letter, stating: "Variations in the brazing process have resulted in a limited number of implants being more susceptible to developing microcracks in the braze joint during subsequent manufacturing steps. These microcracks allow water molecules to enter the implant resulting in the malfunction of specific electronic components," the complaint states, quoting the letter. In a follow-up letter, Mr. Roberts said that "as of January 31, 2012, the overall proportion of Nucleus CI500 series devices that has been reported as failed is 2.4 percent of registered devices globally," according to the complaint. The brazing process connects the external components of the cochlear implant with its internal electrical components, which must be waterproof. Mr. Wade claims that "microcracks in the braze joints of K.W.'s cochlear implants allowed water molecules to enter each of K.W.'s cochlear implants and cause a malfunction of certain electronic components contained in each of K.W.'s cochlear implants." He seeks class damages for three forms of strict product liability: defective manufacturing, design defect, and defect due to nonconformance with representations. He also seeks damages for failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment, and medical monitoring for class members. At least 25,516 recalled cochlear implants have been implanted, according to the complaint. A 2.4 percent failure rate would produce 612 defective implants. A copy of the Complaint in Wade v. Cochlear Limited, Case No. 12- cv-02877 (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/Cochlear.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Morgan, Esq. SCOTT A. MORGAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 217 N. Jefferson, Suite 602 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 327-3386 E-mail: smorgan@smorgan-law.com - and - John Sawin, Esq. SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD. 217 N. Jefferson, Suite 602 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 853-2490 E-mail: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com CONSECO LIFE: Enters Into Tentative Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- CNO Financial Group, Inc. on April 20 disclosed that its subsidiary, Conseco Life Insurance Company, has reached a tentative settlement in the Nicholas putative class action litigation, which involves changes implemented in late 2011 to some non-guaranteed elements in certain universal life policies sold by Conseco Life prior to its acquisition by CNO's predecessor. After a hearing held on April 19, 2012 the judge in the Nicholas litigation case took under advisement Conseco Life's requests for (i) the designation of a nationwide class for the purpose of approving the tentative settlement and (ii) an injunction to stay any other litigation involving the cost of insurance increase implemented by Conseco Life in November 2011 on the Valulife and Valuterm policies that are at issue in the Nicholas litigation. If the court approves the designation of a class for purposes of settlement, final approval of the settlement would be subject to a court fairness hearing after notice to the inforce and former policyholders covered by the settlement and other conditions. In connection with the tentative settlement, CNO expects to record a pre-tax charge of approximately $20 million in its Other CNO Business segment for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The tentative settlement is expected to reduce CNO's consolidated risk-based capital ratio by approximately six percentage points. DAIRY PROCESSORS: May 1 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that dairy farmers in the state's Appalachian and Southeast regions may be eligible to share in a $145 million settlement reached in a class-action settlement. The class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Greenville, Tenn., accused dairy processors of price fixing and underpayments to dairy farmers in Georgia and 11 other states. Those who are dairy farmers or were as far back as 2011, have until May 1 to file a claim. Mark Ellis of the Settlement Recovery Group, LLC, said farmers have a chance to receive an estimated $13,000 each. State agricultural officials say there are 770 dairy farmers still producing milk in east and northeast Georgia. DALLAS, TX: ICE Faces Class Action Over Ankle Monitors ------------------------------------------------------ David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, "noncitizen Americans" say the Dallas Field Office of Immigration Customs and Enforcement and a private "case management" contractor violate civil rights by putting ankle bracelet monitors on people in immigration proceedings. Six named plaintiffs sued three top officials of ICE's Dallas Field Office, and BI, Inc., which "develops, implements and coordinated case management and individual service plans under a contract with ICE," according to the complaint. Lead plaintiff Angel Hernandez challenges the practice of putting ankle monitors on "noncitizen Americans" who are released on their own recognizance while immigration proceedings are pending against them. "The problem is that there is no consistency, or category that is currently used to guide ICE in deciding when to use these devices," the complaint states. "They are humiliating to wear, require a two to three hour a day charge, and are a clear restraint on liberty against individuals whose rights have already been adjudicated." The 37-page complaint defines noncitizen Americans as people who have been detained or processed by ICE's Dallas Field Office who have been released on their own recognizance, have been in the country for at least 5 years, have no criminal record, are not a flight risk, are no threat to society, have strong ties to the community and have family who depend on them. "The use of ankle monitors has become a way to incarcerate petitioners without due process of law in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," the complaint states. "The use of the monitors on qualified NCAs [noncitizen Americans] is also cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment." The class claims the practice deprives them of substantive and procedural due process guarantees under the 14th Amendment and liberty interests under the Fifth and 14th Amendments. They say the agency's resources would be better used on aliens subject to mandatory detention by law. "Field office directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, or who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing, or demonstrate that they are primary caretakers for children or an infirmed person, or whose detention is otherwise not in the public interest," the complaint states. "To detain aliens in those categories who are not subject to mandatory detention, ICE officers or special agents must obtain approval from the field office director." The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedures Act. They are represented by Arturo Rodriguez with the Isenberg Center for Immigration Equality in Dallas. High-ranking field and regional officers in ICE have tremendous discretion: they may raise or cancel bonds, raise bonds even after they are paid, determine the customary bond for a region by fiat, and determine and change policies on detention. Thus, undocumented immigrants detained in one region may all be thrown in jail to await proceedings, while those arrested down the road may be released on their own recognizance, with orders to appear in court at a time uncertain. A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez, et al. v. Weber, et al., Case No. 12-cv-01191 (N.D. Tex.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/Anklets.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arturo Rodriguez, III, Esq. ISENBERG CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION EQUALITY 400 S. Zang Boulevard, Suite 1220 Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (214) 948-0500 DELPHI FINANCIAL: Settles Merger-Related Suit for $49 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Delphi Financial Group, Inc. announced in its April 9, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Delphi, Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. (Tokio Marine) and the other named defendants have agreed to settle for $49 million In re Delphi Financial Group Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 7144-VCG, the consolidated action brought in connection with the merger of Delphi and a subsidiary of Tokio Marine. If the settlement is finalized and approved, Delphi's Class A stockholders and option holders as of the effective time of the merger, other than the defendants to the consolidated action and their affiliates, will receive their pro rata portion of a payment equal to $49 million less plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses, which have not yet been determined. The payment will be made after and subject to approval of the settlement agreement by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. A hearing to consider the settlement is expected to occur subsequent to the closing of the merger. The amount of plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses will be determined at or after the time the Court of Chancery approves the settlement agreement. The settlement is contingent upon, among other things, definitive documentation, completion of the merger and approval by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In the event the court does not approve the settlement or the other conditions are not satisfied, the Delphi defendants will continue to vigorously defend all claims. The payment is separate and distinct from the merger consideration payable to Delphi's Class A stockholders. Under the terms of the previously announced merger agreement with Tokio Marine and TM Investment (Delaware) Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tokio Marine, Class A stockholders will receive $43.875 per Class A share. In addition, Class A stockholders will receive $1.00 in cash per Class A share pursuant to a one-time special dividend from Delphi for each share of Class A stock they own. Delphi also announced that the merger has been approved by the insurance regulators of the states of Illinois, Missouri, New York and Texas and the Cayman Islands and that the applicable waiting period under the competition laws of Hawaii has expired. The closing of the merger remains subject to approval by the Financial Services Agency of Japan and the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2012. About Delphi Financial Delphi Financial Group, Inc. is a financial services company focused on specialty insurance and insurance-related businesses. Delphi is a leader in managing all aspects of employee absence to enhance the productivity of its clients and provides the related group insurance coverages: long-term and short-term disability, life, excess workers' compensation for self-insured employers, large casualty programs including large deductible workers' compensation, travel accident, dental and limited benefit health insurance. Delphi's asset accumulation business emphasizes individual annuity products. Delphi's common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DFG and its corporate website address is http://www.delphifin.com/ DISCOVER CARD: DFS Faces TCPA-Violation Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Discover Financial Services is facing a class action lawsuit in California, according to Discover Card Execution Note Trust's April 9, 2012, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from March 1, 2012, to March 31, 2012. On March 6, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against Discover Financial Services by a Discover Bank cardmember in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Andrew Steinfeld v. Discover Financial Services, DFS Services LLC and Discover Bank). The plaintiff alleges that Discover contacted him, and members of the class he seeks to represent, on their cellular telephones without their express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations). Discover Bank says it is not in a position at this time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the plaintiff. EME HOMER: Court Dismissed Class Claims vs. Parent in March ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed in March 2012 all claims asserted in a purported class action lawsuit against the parent of EME Homer City Generation L.P., according to the Company's March 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In May 2011, private citizens filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, naming a large number of defendants, including Homer City's parent company, Edison Mission Energy ("EME"). Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' activities resulted in emissions of substantial quantities of greenhouse gases that have contributed to climate change and sea level rise, which in turn are alleged to have increased the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina. The lawsuit alleged causes of action for negligence, public and private nuisance, and trespass, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The claims in this lawsuit were nearly identical to a subset of the claims that were raised against many of the same defendants in a previous lawsuit that was filed in, and dismissed by, the same federal district court where the current case has been filed. In March 2012, the United States District Court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims. Homer City does not know whether the plaintiffs will appeal this ruling. GREEN BANKSHARES: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Green Bankshares, Inc. and other defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains pending, according to the Company's April 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On November 18, 2010, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled Bill Burgraff v. Green Bankshares, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division, Case No. 2:10-cv-00253) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in Greeneville, Tennessee, on behalf of all persons that acquired shares of Company common stock between January 19, 2010, and November 9, 2010. On January 18, 2011, a separate shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled Brian Molnar v. Green Bankshares, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division, Case No. 2:11-cv-00014) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the same court on behalf of all persons that acquired shares of Company common stock between January 19, 2010, and October 20, 2010. The lawsuits were filed following, and relate to the drop in value of the Company's common stock price after, the Company announced its third quarter performance results on October 20, 2010. The plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose that the Company was purportedly overvaluing collateral of certain loans; failing to timely take impairment charges of these certain loans; failing to properly account for loan charge-offs; lacking adequate internal and financial controls; and providing false and misleading financial results. The plaintiffs have asserted federal securities laws claims against all defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs have also asserted control person liability claims against the individual defendants named in the complaints pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The two cases were consolidated on February 4, 2011. On February 11, 2011, the Court appointed movant Jeffrey Blomgren as lead plaintiff. On May 3, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended and consolidated complaint alleging a class period of January 19, 2010, to November 9, 2010. On July 11, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Company and the individual defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves against these allegations. GREEN BANKSHARES: Two Class Suits Over CBF Transaction Resolved --------------------------------------------------------------- Two of the four class action lawsuits arising from Green Bankshares, Inc.'s entry into an investment agreement with Capital Bank Financial Corp. were resolved in February 2012, according to the Company's April 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Prior to September 7, 2011, Green Bankshares conducted its business primarily through its wholly-owned subsidiary, GreenBank. On September 7, 2011 (the "Merger Date"), the Bank merged (the "Bank Merger") with and into Capital Bank, National Association ("Capital Bank, NA"), a subsidiary of the Company's majority shareholder, Capital Bank Financial Corp. ("CBF"), in an all-stock transaction, with Capital Bank, NA as the surviving entity. Green Bankshares' approximately 34% ownership interest in Capital Bank, NA is recorded as an equity-method investment in that entity. On May 12, 2011, a stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled Betty Smith v. Green Bankshares, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-625-III, Davidson County, Tennessee, Chancery Court) against the Company, GreenBank, the Company Board and CBF on behalf of all persons holding common stock of the Company. This lawsuit was filed following the Company's public announcement on May 5, 2011, of its entering into an investment agreement with CBF and relates to the investment in the Company by CBF. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by accepting a sale price for the shares to be sold to the Company that was unfair to stockholders of the Company. The complaint also alleges that CBF, the Company and GreenBank aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. It seeks an injunction and/or rescission of the Green Bankshares investment and fees and expenses in an unspecified amount. On May 25 and June 16, 2011, two other stockholders of the Company filed similar putative class action lawsuits (styled Mark McClinton v. Green Bankshares, Inc,. et al., Case No. 11-CV-284kt, Greene County Circuit Court, Greeneville, Tennessee and Thomas Cook v. Green Bankshares, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00176, Greenville Division, E.D. Tenn., respectively) against the Company, the Company Board and CBF on behalf of all persons holding common stock of the Company. The complaints similarly allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by agreeing to sell shares to the Company at a price unfair to its stockholders. The complaints also allege that CBF and the Company aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. In addition, the Cook complaint further alleges that the proxy statement filed with the SEC by the Company in connection with the transaction was issued with material omissions and misleading statements. Both claims seek an injunction and/or rescission of the CBF Investment and fees and expenses in an unspecified amount. On July 6, 2011, another shareholder of the Company filed a lawsuit (styled Barbara N. Ballard v. Stephen M. Rownd, et al., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00201, E.D. Tenn.) against Green Bankshares, its Board of Directors and CBF asserting an individual claim that alleges that the individual defendants violated the securities laws by issuing a preliminary proxy statement that contains alleged material misstatements and omissions. The complaint also alleges a class action claim on behalf of all persons holding the Green Bankshares common stock against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty based on these same alleged material misstatements and omissions. The complaint also alleges that Green Bankshares and CBF aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. It seeks an injunction and/or rescission of the CBF Investment and fees and expenses in an unspecified amount. On July 26, 2011, the parties to the class action lawsuits commenced in 2011 reached an agreement in principle to resolve these lawsuits on the basis of the inclusion of certain additional disclosures regarding the CBF Investment proxy statement filed with the SEC on the same date. The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, court approval. On February 3, 2012, the court in the Smith action entered a final order resolving all claims and, on February 15, 2012, the Cook action was dismissed by the court with prejudice. GREG MORTENSON: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Book --------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that regardless of whether claims are true that author Greg Mortenson fabricated portions of "Three Cups of Tea," neither he nor his publisher can be held liable because the First Amendment protects exaggerations or lies in memoirs, his publisher's attorney said on April 18. Penguin Group (USA) attorney Jonathan Herman -- herman.jonathan@dorsey.com -- and attorneys for Mr. Mortenson, co-author David Oliver Relin and Mr. Mortenson's charity, the Central Asia Institute, asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by four people who bought Mr. Mortenson's bestselling books. The lawsuit was filed after "60 Minutes" and author Jon Krakauer published reports last year that Mr. Mortenson fabricated parts of "Three Cups of Tea" and "Stones Into Schools," which recount his efforts to build schools in Central Asia. The suit claims Mr. Mortenson and the others committed fraud, deceit and were involved in a racketeering conspiracy in publishing lies. Mr. Mortenson headed the conspiracy to set himself up as a false hero so that he could sell millions of books and raise tens of millions of dollars for his charity, the plaintiffs' attorney Zander Blewett said. "Mortenson obviously is the main, main liar," he said. "He has just drafted himself a web of deception . . . and used it to raise $62 million." In arguing to reject the case, neither Messrs. Herman nor Mortenson attorney John Kauffman addressed the specific fabrication claims. Mr. Herman said the proper place for someone to object to the books is in the sphere of public debate, not in a courtroom to be prosecuted by self-appointed "truth police." "The First Amendment permits someone who writes an autobiography to exaggerate or even lie," Mr. Herman said. U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon did not make an immediate ruling, saying he wanted to consider the arguments further. "Three Cups of Tea," which has sold about 4 million copies since being published in 2006, was conceived as a way to raise money and tell the story of his institute, founded by Mr. Mortenson in 1996. The book and tireless promotion of the charity by Mr. Mortenson, who appeared at more than 500 speaking engagements in four years, resulted in tens of millions of dollars in donations. The book recounts how Mr. Mortenson lost his way after a failed mountaineering expedition and was nursed back to health in a Pakistani village. Based on the villagers' kindness and the poverty he saw, he resolved to build a school for them. The lawsuit -- filed by two California residents, a Montana man and an Illinois woman who bought the books -- says that tale is among more than two dozen alleged fabrications and accusations of wrongdoing by Mr. Mortenson and the others. The hearing comes less than two weeks after Mr. Mortenson and the Montana attorney general announced a $1 million agreement to settle claims that Mr. Mortenson mismanaged the institute and misspent its funds. The agreement removes Mr. Mortenson from any financial oversight and overhauls the charity's structure, but did not address the books' contents. That's where the civil lawsuit comes in. The plaintiffs are asking Judge Haddon to certify their lawsuit as a class action that would make everybody who bought the books a plaintiff. They want an accounting of all the money collected form book sales, have that money refunded to the people who bought the books and have additional damages put into a trust for a humanitarian organization selected by their attorneys and approved by the court. A First Amendment expert called the lawsuit absurd, regardless of whether the books contain fabrications. Mr. Mortenson did not defame or harm anyone in his books and, barring narrow exceptions like national secrets, he can write what he wants and does not have to justify it, said Wayne Giampietro, a Chicago attorney and general counsel of the First Amendment Lawyers Association. "It is what it is: Here's a book. If you want to buy it, buy it. If you don't, don't," Mr. Giampietro said. The defendants' lawyers said such a case, if it were allowed to proceed, would damage the publishing industry and dampen free speech because it would require prohibitively expensive fact- checking for every book published. In the case of Mr. Mortenson's memoir, it would be virtually impossible to independently verify all of his experiences in Central Asia, especially with several people cited who are now dead, Relin attorney Sonia Montalbano said. His story hasn't injured anyone, so there is no need to, she said. "No one can be damaged by someone telling his own life story," she said. After the "60 Minutes" and Krakauer reports last year, Penguin promised an internal investigation into the allegation that portions of the books were fabricated. Mr. Blewett referenced that investigation on April 18. Mr. Herman declined to provide any updates, either during or after the hearing. "The publisher knows only what the author has told it. That's it," Mr. Herman said. One of the lawyers in the case is Larry Drury, who also represented plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against James Frey, who admitted on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" that he lied in his memoir "A Million Little Pieces." That lawsuit ended in a settlement that offered refunds to buyers of the book. Mr. Drury and Mr. Blewett say the Mortenson and Frey cases "are stunningly close," but Mr. Haddon said he would not consider that case in these proceedings because it was settled without addressing any of the issues before him now. HOME DEPOT: Sued for Denying Suitable Seating for Employees ----------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Durand, writing for The Daily Journal, reports that a former greeter at Home Depot in East Palo Alto is suing the building chain, claiming the company broke state labor law by not providing him or any other worker a seat when they welcome customers to the store. The class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of Kunaal Sharma, is similar to previous claims in the last few years lodged against big-box retail stores, including Home Depot, Target and 99 Cents Only, over employees' rights to suitable seating. The suit seeks penalties on behalf of Mr. Sharma and other current and former Home Depot greeters similarly denied a seat from Feb. 7, 2011 to the present. "There is no reason why that work can't be accomplished from a nice ergonomically designed chair or stool with their feet up but these companies feel the employees cannot give top-level customer service," said attorney Matthew Righetti who filed the suit April 11 on Mr. Sharma's behalf. Mr. Righetti has been involved in several similar suits over seating and said this class action matter is no different in arguing that California labor law allows a worker to sit if they can accomplish the same work as if standing. "The retailer is not the one to decide who gets a seat or not," he said. Sharma worked as a cashier and greeter at the East Palo Alto store for seven years between October 2005 to September 2011. Mr. Righetti did not know if Mr. Sharma specifically asked for a chair and was denied prior to leaving his position at Home Depot. Either way, Mr. Righetti said a request -- along with a worker's age and physical condition -- makes no difference when a denial under any circumstances violates labor law which hold that all working employees be provided "suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats." Mr. Righetti said Home Depot's policy is to refuse a chair to all employees unless they can provide a medical note about their condition and that once a limitation such as pregnancy or twisted ankle is resolved they are again expected to stand. Even that limited exception shows that the work can be done while seated, Mr. Righetti said. Home Depot corporate headquarters declined to discuss its seating policies, citing the ongoing litigation, but spokesman Stephen Holmes said the company plans to fight the claim. "We disagree with the claims presented in this suit and intend to vigorously defend our position in the proper forum," Mr. Holmes said. The suit is currently scheduled for a complex case status conference June 7 followed by a case management conference Aug. 22. Mr. Righetti said he does not anticipate a settlement as retailers have previously spent "tens of millions to litigate" even as rulings supporting seating have been affirmed by appellate courts. In November 2010, the courts overturned a lower court's decision tossing a suit against 99 Cents Only stores after the company's lawyers argued the wording about "suitable seating" was a suggestion rather than law. The appellate court called the interpretation contrary to common sense and that ruling was later used to affirm the seating law in a different suit against Home Depot. HORIZON LINES: Still Defends Class Suit Over Alaska Tradelane ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Lines, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit relating to the Alaska tradelane, according to the Company's April 10, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 25, 2011. On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena and search warrant from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean shipping business. On February 23, 2011, the Company entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ and on March 22, 2011, the Court entered judgment accepting the Company's plea agreement and imposed a fine of $45.0 million payable over five years without interest. The Company recorded a charge of $30.0 million during the year ended December 26, 2010, which represented the present value of the $45.0 million in installment payments. On April 28, 2011, the Court reduced the fine from $45.0 million to $15.0 million payable over five years without interest. As a result, during the year ended December 25, 2011, the Company recorded a reversal of $19.2 million of the charge originally recorded during December 26, 2010. The first $1.0 million of the fine was paid in April 2011 and the second $1.0 million payment was made in March 2012. The Company must make payments of $2.0 million on or before March 24, 2013, $3.0 million on or before March 24, 2014, $4.0 million on or before March 24, 2015, and $4.0 million on or before March 21, 2016. The plea agreement provides that the Company will not face additional charges relating to the Puerto Rico tradelane. In addition, the plea agreement provides that the Company will not face any additional charges in connection with the Alaska trade, and the DOJ has indicated that the Company is not a target or subject of any Hawaii or Guam aspects of its investigation. Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, thirty- two class action lawsuits on behalf of direct purchasers of ocean shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane were consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the District of Puerto Rico. On June 11, 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the named plaintiff class representatives in the Puerto Rico MDL. Under the settlement agreement, the Company paid $20.0 million and agreed to provide a base-rate freeze to class members who elect such freeze in lieu of a cash payment. Some class members elected to opt-out of the settlement. The Company and attorneys representing those shippers who (i) opted out of the Puerto Rico direct purchaser settlement and (ii) indicated an intention to pursue an antitrust claim against the Company relating to the Puerto Rico tradelane, entered into a settlement agreement, dated November 23, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company paid $5.8 million and has agreed to make payments of $4.0 million on each of June 30, 2012, and December 24, 2012. Twenty-five class action lawsuits relating to ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes were consolidated into a MDL proceeding in the Western District of Washington. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the claims in the Hawaii and Guam MDL, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and amended complaint. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court's decision to dismiss the amended complaint. One class action lawsuit relating to the Alaska tradelane is pending in the District of Alaska. The Company and the class plaintiffs have agreed to stay the Alaska litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against the purported class action lawsuit in Alaska. Horizon Lines, Inc. is a domestic ocean shipping and integrated logistics company. The Company owns or leases a fleet of 20 U.S.- flag containerships and operates five port terminals linking the continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The Company also provides integrated, reliable and cost competitive logistics solutions. Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and trades on the OTCQB Marketplace under symbol HRZL. INTEGRATED SECURITY: "Grube" hCG-Related Suit vs. iSatori Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Integrated Security Systems, Inc.'s subsidiary remains stayed, according to the Company's April 9, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated") and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly- owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and iSatori (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated. Paul Jeffrey Grube brought a class action lawsuit against three companies, including iSatori based on the defendants' alleged marketing, distribution, or sales of products purporting to contain human chorionic gonadotropin ("hCG") or a natural hCG alternative. Grube claims that the defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of numerous state consumer protection laws, breached express warranties, and were unjustly enriched. iSatori has received a letter from GNC Corp., demanding iSatori indemnify GNC Corp. pursuant to an agreement between iSatori and GNC Corp. The action was stayed pending possible consolidation with other hCG litigation. INTEGRATED SECURITY: iSatori Continues to Defend "Aviles" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Integrated Security Systems, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class action lawsuit brought by Jerry Aviles, according to the Company's April 9, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated") and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly- owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and iSatori (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated. Jerry Aviles has brought a class action complaint against iSatori relating to its product ISA-TEST. Aviles alleges iSatori violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and engaged in unfair or deceptive business practice and false advertising in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. KEYSPAN CORP: 2nd Cir. Upholds Mail Fraud Verdict on A. Bosgang --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a New York federal court ruling convicting Alvin Bosgang of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 in relation to a KeySpan Corporation class action settlement. The district court sentenced Mr. Bosgang to 30 days' imprisonment, three years' supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and restitution of $1,395,694.78. Mr. Bosgang pled guilty to submitting a false claim form to David Berdon & Company that represented his owned stock in KeySpan in order to receive a class action settlement from the KeySpan Corporation Securities Litigation. The case is captioned United States of America, Appellee v. Alvin J. Bosgang, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 10-5212-cr, (2nd Cir.). A copy of the Second Circuit's March 15, 2012, Summary Order is available at http://is.gd/IWGjGMfrom Leagle.com. Vivian M. Williams, Esq., at Vivian M. Williams and Associates PC, in New York, N.Y., represented Mr. Bosgang. Peter A. Norling, William P. Campos, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, for Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N.Y., represented the United States of America as Appellee. LOOKSMART LTD: Settlement Fund in "Lane's" Suit Closed in June -------------------------------------------------------------- A fund established in connection with the settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., et al., was closed in June 2011, according to LookSmart, Ltd.'s March 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In 2008, the Company established a Settlement Fund related to a class action lawsuit in which the Company was named as a defendant, Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., v. Yahoo! Inc (the "Fund"). In the second quarter of 2011, the Company determined that all settlements related to the Fund had been paid. The Fund was closed on June 30, 2011, and the Company recorded $0.3 million in non-operating income related to the closure. As previously reported, on March 14, 2005, LookSmart Ltd. was served with the second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas. The complaint named eleven search engines and web publishers as defendants, including the Company, and alleged breach of contract, restitution/unjust enrichment/money had and received, and civil conspiracy claims in connection with contracts allegedly entered into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click advertising. The named plaintiffs on the second amended complaint were Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations. On July 26, 2006, the Court approved a class settlement among plaintiffs, defendant Google, Inc., and certain defendants who display Google advertisements on their networks. LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Wins Court Order to Prevent Asset Seizure ------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Anderson, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that officials of the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. said on April 20 they have won a temporary court order that prevents $105 million of their assets from being seized to pay policyholders who allege the company was late in adjusting their claims after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Richard Robertson, Citizens chief executive officer, confirmed that 19th Judicial District Court Judge Tim Kelly signed a temporary order on April 19 that will keep the money in Citizens bank account a while longer. Citizens has battled against paying the claims for years, alleging that Jefferson Parish District Court Judge Henry Sullivan granted a judgment to the members of a class action, entitled Geraldine Oubre et al. vs. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, without giving Citizens a proper hearing and due process. Citizens officials say they have the cash to pay the judgment, but that paying the judgment would leave their assets diminished just as hurricane season gets underway. Mr. Roberston said Judge Kelly has set a hearing for April 30 on a request to make the temporary order permanent. Citizens' lawsuit was filed against Regions Bank, which has the assets of the state's insurer of last resort. Earlier last week, Citizens also filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to have the judgment -- which has been upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court -- overturned. The original judgment against Citizens was for $92.86 million that would have been paid to more than 18,500 policyholders in 2009. With legal interest, the judgment has ballooned to $105 million and is growing by about $10,000 a day. After going through multiple appeals and winning most, the lawyers for the Oubre class action lawsuit filed and won an order to have the assets seized from Regions. That will be on hold until the Baton Rouge litigation is over. Both parties can appeal that ruling also. Fred Herman, one of the attorneys in the Oubre case, said Citizens did not properly file the lawsuit against its banker and did not notify attorneys in the class action as they should have. "This is something like I have never seen in 42 years of practice," said Wiley Beevers, another New Orleans lawyer representing the plaintiffs. Mr. Herman said that the plaintiffs lawyers will now ask Judge Kelly to let them intervene in the Baton Rouge case and ask him to cancel the temporary restraining order he issued on April 19. There have been futile attempts in the last few years to settle the lawsuit, but the parties have not come to terms. Messrs. Beevers, Herman and other lawyers in the case were called to Baton Rouge on April 20 for what they thought would be a negotiating session with the Citizens board in an executive session. The board went behind closed doors from more than an hour, but the lawyers were not involved and cooled their heels in the Insurance Department Building lobby. "We were told this was going to be a negotiating session," by some board members who asked us to show up, Mr. Herman said. Mr. Robertson said that the attorneys were called to Baton Rouge "in case of a negotiating session," but one never materialized. Mr. Beevers called the latest lawsuit "a sneaky, backdoor move" to delay the payment to the policyholders. "This is just another obstacle to delay the inevitable court-ordered payment to the Oubre class; eventually, we will prevail," he said. Meeting Cancelled Chad Hemenway, of PropertyCasualty360.Com, reports that a scheduled meeting on April 20 between Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. and attorneys for more than 18,500 policyholders owed about $105 million from the last-resort insurer was abruptly canceled. According to class-action plaintiffs' attorneys, Citizens scheduled the meeting to attempt to resolve the long, drawn-out case and gave no explanation for canceling. "This is just another obstacle to delay the inevitable court- ordered payment to the class," says Mr. Beevers. Earlier this month, the state Supreme Court lifted a stay on the $105 million judgment against Citizens in favor of the class of policyholders who say Citizens did not act quickly enough to adjust claims following hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. On April 19, Citizens filed a temporary restraining order against its bank to prevent it from releasing its funds to the policyholders. The state-run insurer filed a request last week for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Attempts to reach Louisiana Citizens were not immediately successful. Mr. Beevers says he'll file a motion to vacate the temporary restraining order placed on Citizens' bank. "Eventually, we will prevail," he says. Plaintiffs' attorneys say Citizens signed and delivered the order against its bank at the home of a judge late April 19 and without legal notice to the class of policyholders, which is required. "This is just another bizarre move that will prove to be as ill- fated as a number of their previous tactics in the unseemly legal process engaged in by Citizens," Mr. Beevers says. Last December, the state high court overruled a state appeals court and reinstated the award to policyholders, given by the district court in March 2009. Citizens has tried every avenue in an attempt to delay or stop the judgment against it. Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon called the award to policyholders a "potentially devastating event" because it puts the last-resort insurer of coastal properties at a disadvantage heading into the hurricane season this year. After the judgment was reinstated, Citizens tried to work out a settlement for less money to the policyholders. The insurer also tried to file court papers to delay payment to policyholders while it appealed the state Supreme Court's ruling. The insurer was denied a stay by the state high court on Jan. 27. MADISON-KIPP CORP: Class Action Likely to Include More Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Schneider, writing for The Capital Times, reports that a lawyer representing Madison-Kipp Corp. neighbors who are suing the east-side metal parts fabricator over chemical contamination, says that the class action lawsuit may end up including damages from additional contaminants that the state has just revealed are on the factory site. "If it turns out PCBs were improperly disposed of, that will be part of our lawsuit," attorney Shawn Collins told The Capital Times. "The important thing for the residents is that there be thorough and immediate testing. They need to find out how big the problem is and whether they are also threatened by PCBs in addition to other chemicals." The Department of Natural Resources on April 19 released to the public its harshly worded letter to Kipp officials demanding a prompt investigation and cleanup of PCB contamination on its property. PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are a group of chemical compounds once widely used as industrial coolants that have been linked to cancer and neurological problems. Days earlier, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb granted the neighbors' petition to bring a class action against Kipp, saying it "is superior to other methods for resolution of core issues: whether or not and to what extent defendant Madison-Kipp caused contamination in the area in question." Owners of seven properties neighboring the Kipp plant filed a lawsuit last fall in federal court seeking money and chemical cleanup, months after they learned that soil vapors containing tetrachloroethylene, also known as PCE, had migrated from Kipp property onto theirs. They say the contamination has gutted their property values. The DNR has been overseeing PCE cleanup at the site since 1994. Early this year, neighbors sought to convert their lawsuit to a class action open to the owners and residents of 34 properties on South Marquette Street and Waubesa Street that border the Kipp property. That's what Judge Crabb ordered last week. As he has in the past, Mr. Collins on April 20 criticized the DNR for its oversight of chemical cleanup on the Kipp site. "It's absolutely unforgiveable that 20 years into this problem we're just now learning about a new and dangerous chemical. There had better not be any delay in comprehensive testing to see how big of a PCB problem these families have. The DNR wrote a very blunt letter to Madison-Kipp, but there has to be more than letter- writing going on here. We hope DNR understands that." Neighbors have complained, too, about what they see as DNR's lackadaisical approach to enforcing cleanup laws. "They have no faith in the DNR," Mr. Collins says. DNR went public with its enforcement action on the PCBs after, state officials say, Kipp didn't respond to its questions about discovery of the contamination for more than two weeks. "The Department cannot emphasize enough the serious nature of this situation," reads the letter to Kipp hand-delivered on April 19. Kipp officials say they are cooperating with the DNR on an investigation of PCBs on the site, just as they have in testing and cleanup of PCE. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $45-Mil. as of March 1 Under Suits Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been filed against Micron Technology, Inc. and other dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) suppliers in various federal and state courts in the United States of America and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002. The complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In July 2006, the Attorneys General for approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief. On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local California government entities, alleging, among other things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law. On June 23, 2010, the Company executed a settlement agreement resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged DRAM price-fixing in the United States. Subject to certain conditions, including final court approval of the class settlements, the Company agreed to pay approximately $67 million in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period. As of March 1, 2012, the Company has paid $45 million into an escrow account in accordance with the settlement agreement, according to the Company's April 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 1, 2012. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Canadian Price-Fixing Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) products have been filed against Micron Technology, Inc. in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, asserting violations of the Canadian Competition Act and other common law claims. The claims were initiated between December 2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006 (Quebec). The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the United States. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June 2008, respectively. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal of each of those decisions. On November 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed, and on November 16, 2011, the Quebec Court of Appeal also reversed the denial of class certification and remanded the cases for further proceedings. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 1, 2012. The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of these matters and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The Company adds that the final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Concussion Suit Lead Plaintiff Dies ---------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McCauley, writing for SBNation.com, reports that Ray Easterling, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action concussion lawsuits filed by former players against the NFL, has committed suicide. Mr. Easterling, who was 62 years old, was discovered by his wife in his home after passing away from a self- inflicted gunshot wound. Mr. Easterling was a starting safety for the Atlanta Falcons from 1974-1977 and reportedly played through multiple concussions during his playing career. He has suffered with depression and insomnia since retiring from the game and was diagnosed with dementia in 2011. The quotes from his wife, Mary Ann Easterling, regarding his condition are truly frightening. "He had been feeling more and more pain. He felt like his brain was falling off. He was losing control. He couldn't remember things from five minutes ago. It was frightening, especially somebody who had all the plays memorized as a player when he stepped on the field," Mrs. Easterling said. Mr. Easterling is one of thousands of players who have filed lawsuits against the NFL for alleged negligence regarding concussions to players. He's also one of an alarming number of former players who have taken their own lives after their playing careers had passed, the most well-known recent case before him being Dave Duerson. Undoubtedly, this tragedy will have some effect on those lawsuits and further discussions regarding the long-term effects of concussions. NEW ENERGY: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in New York -------------------------------------------------------- New Energy Systems Group is facing two securities class action lawsuits in New York, according to the Company's April 2, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In February 2012, two separate securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaints allege that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that rendered its affirmative statements misleading as they related to the Company's financial performance, business prospects, and financial condition, and that the defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued or corrected, during a putative class period between April 15, 2010, and November 14, 2011. The complaints seek, among other relief, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. One of the lawsuits was filed on February 28, 2012, against the Company and Fushun Li, Nian Chen, Junfeng Chen, Weihe Yu, who served as officers and directors of the Company between April 15, 2010, and November 14, 2011. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in connection with purported misrepresentations contained in the Company's public filings and press releases. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. The Company believes the complaint has no merit and intends to vigorously oppose the lawsuit. The Company believes it is likely that a consolidated amended complaint will be filed after the Court determines the Lead Plaintiff and lead counsel for the litigation. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint, but the Company believes that the complaints have no merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. While certain legal defense costs may be later reimbursed by the Company's insurance carrier, no reasonable estimate of any impact of the outcome of the litigation or related legal fees on the financial statements can be made as of April 2, 2012. PUBLIX: Managers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed against Publix in federal court in Panama City, Florida, by four department managers asserting they were improperly paid overtime. (Castoro-Harrigan, et. al v. Publix, United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Case No. 5:12-cv-113) The filed complaint states Publix failed to properly include the value of quarterly and year-end bonuses in the calculation of the manager's overtime. The complaint also asserts these managers should have been paid at a rate of "time and one-half" for their overtime hours, rather than the "half time" fluctuating work week (or "Chinese Overtime") method used by Publix. Publix schedules its department managers and assistant managers to work a tremendous amount of overtime each week, according to the complaint. These managers seek to represent a class of managers in similar positions which would expand the case to cover all current and former department managers and assistant department managers who worked overtime in the past 3 years in Publix's 1,051 stores in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee. The suit was filed by Tallahassee, Florida attorneys Sean Culliton -- http://seanculliton.com-- and John C. Davis -- http://johndavislaw.net RADWARE LTD: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded ---------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit arising from Radware Ltd.'s initial public offering in 1999 and secondary offering in 2000 has been concluded, according to the Company's March 28, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In December 2001, the Company, its Chairman Yehuda Zisapel, its President, Chief Executive Officer and Director Roy Zisapel and its Chief Financial Officer Meir Moshe (the "Individual Defendants") and several underwriters in the syndicates for the Company's September 30, 1999 initial public offering and January 24, 2000 secondary offering, were named as defendants in a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "district court"). The complaint sought unspecified damages as a result of alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") against all the defendants and Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Individual Defendants arising from activities purportedly engaged in by the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. An amended complaint filed on April 19, 2002, which is now the operative complaint, added a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") against the Company and a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses for the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering were false and misleading because they did not disclose these arrangements. The action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies before one judge in the district court. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice. This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person claims without prejudice, since these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants. On December 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") vacated a decision by the district court granting class certification in six "focus" cases, which are intended to serve as test cases. Plaintiffs selected these six cases, which does not include the Company. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that the plaintiffs could ask the district court to certify more narrow classes than those that were rejected. Prior to the Second Circuit's decision, the majority of issuers, including the Company, had submitted a settlement agreement to the district court for approval. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, the parties agreed that the settlement could not be approved. On June 25, 2007, the district court approved a stipulation filed by the plaintiffs and the issuers that terminated the proposed settlement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six focus cases. The six focus case issuers and the underwriters named as defendants in the focus cases filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints against them on November 14, 2007. On September 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the six focus cases. On March 26, 2008, the district court dismissed the Section 11 claims of those members of the putative classes in the focus cases who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the previously certified class period. With respect to all the other claims, the motions to dismiss were denied. On October 10, 2008, at the request of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was withdrawn, without prejudice. The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated class actions, including Radware, the underwriter defendants in the Radware class action, and the plaintiffs in the Radware class action, have reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including Radware. On October 5, 2009, the court granted final approval of the settlement and judgment was entered on January 10, 2010. A group of three objectors filed a petition to the Second Circuit seeking permission to appeal the District Court's final approval order on the basis that the settlement class is broader than the class previously rejected by the Second Circuit in its December 5, 2006 order vacating the District Court's certifying classes in the focus cases. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the petition. In addition, six notices of appeal to the Second Circuit have been filed by different groups of objectors, including the objectors that filed the petition to appeal. Two appeals proceeded. One appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The district court ruled that the appellant lacked standing to appeal. The appellant appealed the district court decision to the Second Circuit. Subsequently, the class plaintiffs and the appellant entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the appellant withdrew and dismissed his appeal with prejudice. The settlement is, therefore, final and the case is concluded. SAIC INC: Shareholder Files Class Action Over CityTime ------------------------------------------------------ Jill R. Aitoro, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports that an SAIC Inc. shareholder filed a federal class-action suit against the company and current and former executives in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, alleging violation of federal securities laws during a fraud and kickback scheme involving a New York City contract. This is the third lawsuit filed against SAIC for actions surrounding the CityTime automated payroll project, which was allegedly the mechanism used by company employees for a sophisticated fraud scheme. Two similar complaints were filed in the Southern District of New York. All three lawsuits also named as defendants former company CEO Kenneth Dahlberg, current Chief Financial Officer Mark Sopp and CityTime project manager Gerard Denault, who was indicted in early 2011 on charges of kickbacks, wire fraud and money laundering that took place through the CityTime project. Typically class-action lawsuits against public companies are combined into a single case in one District Court. The most recent lawsuit was filed in the court district that includes SAIC's McLean headquarters. Plaintiff Gregory Williams, on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired SAIC's common stock between April 11, 2007, and Sept. 1, 2011, is asking that damages be paid in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest, and that costs and expenses incurred in the action be reimbursed. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that the company violated the 1934 Securities Exchange Act by not disclosing valuable information to shareholders about issues involving the CityTime contract beginning in 2007, including New York's dissatisfaction with SAIC's performance under the program and allegations of fraud, causing investors to misjudge the value of the company's stock and suffer economic loss when the price declined in the wake of the scandal. A spokeswoman for SAIC said the company does not comment on ongoing litigation. SAIC announced March 14 that it would pay $500.4 million as part of the settlement with the U.S. attorney's office over the CityTime contract. That amount consists of $370.4 million in restitution and a $130 million penalty. The settlement also terminated a $40 million payment owed to SAIC. SEA STAR: Faces Antitrust Suit Following Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Bonney, writing for The Journal of Commerce Online, reports that Sea Star Line, Crowley Liner Services and their parent companies have been hit with a second civil antitrust lawsuit by shippers that opted out of a class action settlement for carrier price-fixing in the Puerto Rico trade. The lawsuit by Kraft Foods and Kellogg Co. was filed in U.S. District Court in Charleston, S.C. The suit tracks similar allegations in a lawsuit filed in the same court by 37 Sea Star and Crowley customers. Both lawsuits seek treble damages. The lawsuits include detailed allegations about a price-fixing conspiracy that came to light four years ago after federal agents raided offices of Sea Star, Crowley and Horizon Lines. A federal criminal investigation has produced guilty pleas by Horizon, Sea Star and five of their former executives. Horizon, Sea Star and Crowley agreed to pay a total of $52.25 million to settle a class action civil antitrust lawsuit by customers, and $5 million to settle claims by indirect customers. Numerous shippers opted out of the class action settlement, leaving them free to sue the carriers individually. Horizon reached settlements with the opt-out shippers and is not a defendant in the latest lawsuits. Defendants in the Kraft-Kellogg lawsuit are Sea Star, its majority owner Saltchuk Resources, Crowley Liner Services and its parent, Crowley Maritime Corp., and Leonard Shapiro, a former Saltchuk director. SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Awaits Rulings on N.Y. Class Suit Dismissal Bids ----------------------------------------------------------------- SkyPeople Fruit Juice, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on its motions to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's March 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor child N.K.) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its individual officers and/or directors, Yongke Xue and Xiaoqin Yan, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On June 20, 2011, plaintiff Benjamin Padnos filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company, all of its individual officers and/or directors, Yongke Xue, Xiaoqin Yan, Norman Ko, John W. Smagula, Spring Liu, Child Van Wagner & Bradshaw, PLLC, BDO Limited and Rodman & Renshaw,LLC, the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 30, 2011, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed Zachary Lewy as lead plaintiff. On September 30, 2011, pursuant to the Court's order, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint names the Company, Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, BDO Limited, Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC and certain of the Company's current and former directors and majority shareholders as defendants and alleges violations of Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder. In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs are seeking to be awarded, among other things, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action. The Company believes the allegations are baseless and is contesting the case vigorously. In this regard, motions to dismiss have been submitted to the court. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending its position and has made no accrual for any potential contingencies. THEGLOBE.COM INC: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class action lawsuit over theglobe.com, inc.'s initial public offering has been concluded, the Company disclosed in its March 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On and after August 3, 2001, six putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and several investment banks that were the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering. The lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed in the Southern District of New York on April 19, 2002. The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the stock of the Company during the period from November 12, 1998, through December 6, 2000. The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act") and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"). Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering and its secondary offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre- determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectuses for the Company's initial public offering and its secondary offering were false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice. This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person claims without prejudice. The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. The parties in the coordinated cases, including the Company's, reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including theglobe. On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The settlement approval was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. One appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the district court to determine if the appellant is a class member with standing to appeal. The District Court ruled that the appellant lacks standing to appeal. The appellant appealed the District Court's decision to the Second Circuit. Subsequently, appellant entered into a settlement agreement with counsel for the plaintiff class pursuant to which he dismissed his appeal with prejudice. As a result, the settlement among the parties in the IPO Litigation is final and the case against theglobe.com and the Individual Defendants is concluded. TOYOTA MOTOR: Some Acceleration Claims Tentatively Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Sue Zeidler, writing for Reuters, reports that Toyota Motor Corp has won the tentative dismissal of some claims in the class-action lawsuit brought by owners of its vehicles over problems with sudden acceleration. In what would be a victory for Toyota if the ruling becomes definitive, U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, California, said New York and Florida class representatives cannot bring claims under their states' laws for lost value in their vehicles due to Toyota's recalls for sudden, unintended acceleration. Toyota, which had filed a motion to dismiss the claims, said it does not comment on tentative rulings. Judge Selna was expected to rule definitively sometime after hearing oral arguments on April 23. "As set forth herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants Motion to Dismiss," said Judge Selna in court documents filed on April 20. The case consolidates class actions across various states. Judge Selna in December dismissed a U.S. lawsuit brought by owners in 14 other countries who said their Toyotas lost value because of the sudden acceleration problems. Last June, Judge Selna ruled that Toyota owners outside California who seek to recover losses from their vehicles' value cannot pursue their claims under California law. California consumer protection laws are more favorable for plaintiffs than those of most other states. Toyota has recalled several million vehicles for problems since late 2009, that owners have linked to unintended acceleration. The recalls led to hundreds of state and federal lawsuits, including claims over alleged injuries and deaths and "economic loss" claims tied to lost resale value. Judge Selna handles most of the federal cases. The case is in re:Toyota Motor Corp Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 10-ml-2151. VERINT SYSTEMS: "Deutsch" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Israel ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit commenced by Orit Deutsch in Israel against a subsidiary of Verint Systems Inc. remains stayed, according to the Company's April 2, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 31, 2012. On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class action lawsuit (the "Labor Motion"), and the class action lawsuit itself (the "Labor Class Action") (Labor Case No. 4186/09), were filed against the Company's subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), by a former employee of VSL, Orit Deutsch, in the Tel Aviv Labor Court. Ms. Deutsch purports to represent a class of the Company's employees and ex-employees who were granted options to buy shares of Verint and to whom allegedly damages were caused as a result of the blocking of the ability to exercise Verint options by the Company's employees or ex-employees during its previous extended filing delay period. The Labor Class Action seeks compensatory damages for the entire class in an unspecified amount. On July 9, 2009, the Company filed a motion for summary dismissal and alternatively for the stay of the Labor Motion. On February 8, 2010, the Tel Aviv Labor Court dismissed the case for lack of material jurisdiction and ruled that it would be transferred to the District Court in Tel Aviv. On October 11, 2011, the District Court in Tel Aviv ordered a stay of proceedings until legal proceedings in the United States with respect to related shareholder claims against Comverse Technology Inc. are concluded. The parties were to update the District Court on any developments in the cases by April 4, 2012. VITA COCO: July 23 Deadline Set for Settlement Claim Form --------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucarow LLP; Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC and O'Melveny & Myers LLP on April 23 issued a statement regarding a settlement reached in the class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York known as Fishbein, et al. v. All Market Inc. d/b/a Vita Coco, Case No. 11- CIV-5580 (JPO). LEGAL NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT If you purchased Vita Coco Products between August 10, 2007 and the present you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement. A settlement, set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") between the Parties, has been reached in a class action lawsuit about whether All Market Inc. (d/b/a Vita Coco) ("Vita Coco") misrepresented the health benefits and nutritional content of its Vita Coco Products, which are defined in the Stipulation to mean "all coconut water products, regardless of product line, flavor, and/or unit size, marketed and sold by Vita Coco in the United States." Vita Coco denies it did anything wrong. The settlement will provide Settlement Class Members (as defined below) who timely submit a valid Claim Form (as defined in the Stipulation) with the option of receiving a cash payment or product voucher. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may send in a Claim Form to receive a cash payment or a product voucher. Claim Forms can be obtained at http://www.vitacocosettlement.com A federal court authorized this notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. Am I a Settlement Class Member? You're a Settlement Class Member if you purchased Vita Coco Products between August 10, 2007 and the present. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Vita Coco's employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives; (b) those who purchased Vita Coco Products for the purpose of re-sale; (c) all federal judges who have presided over this case; and (d) all Persons (as defined in the Stipulation) who have been properly excluded from the Settlement Class. What Does the Settlement Provide? Vita Coco agreed to a cash settlement of $1 million (the "Cash Settlement Fund"), which will provide for payments to Settlement Class Members who timely file claims of up to a maximum of $25.00 with Proof of Purchase (as defined in the Stipulation) and $6.00 without Proof of Purchase. Vita Coco has agreed to provide $1 million current retail value in product vouchers, which can be redeemed by Settlement Class Members who timely file claims in lieu of cash up to a maximum of $36.00 with Proof of Purchase or $8.00 without Proof of Purchase. Vita Coco also agreed to institute a program that will change the labels and advertising of its Vita Coco Products and that will increase the quality control of its Vita Coco Products. Vita Coco has agreed to pay no less than $4 million implementing this program over a five year period. Vita Coco also agreed to distribute Vita Coco Products with a current retail value of $3 million to charitable organizations that promote healthy living (at a level of $1 million in retail value of product each year). What are my options? To ask for a payment or product voucher and remain in the Settlement Class, you must mail a Claim Form or submit a completed Claim Form online by July 23, 2012. If you do not wish to participate in the settlement, you may exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by July 23, 2012, or you may stay in the Settlement Class and object to the settlement by July 23, 2012. Visit http://www.vitacocosettlement.comor call 1- 855-375-3055 for important information about the settlement, your rights and how to file a Claim Form for payment. The Court will hold a hearing on August 22, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. to consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement and whether to grant Class Counsel's (as defined in the Stipulation) request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards for class representatives. Class Counsel will apply to the Court for their fees and expenses not to exceed a total of $750,000 subject to the terms of the Stipulation. Class Counsel will also request that the Court approve Vita Coco's payment of an "incentive award" of $2,000 to each of the four class representatives. Vita Coco will not oppose these requests. All fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel and incentive awards awarded to class representatives will be paid by Vita Coco in addition to the $1 million Cash Settlement Fund and will therefore have no effect on the Cash Settlement Fund or the other relief provided by the Stipulation. For more information, go to http://www.vitacocosettlement.com Or Call 1-855-375-3055 CLAIM FORMS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED ONLINE BY July 23, 2012. ********* 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 * * *