/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120430.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, April 30, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 84
Headlines
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: School Dist. Sued for Handcuffing Girl
APOLLO GROUP: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Double-Billing
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Sued Over Power-Sweep Auger Deficiencies
BP: Judge Hears Oil Spill Class Action Settlement
CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Gold Dredge Mining Regulations
CALIX INC: Court Certified Class in Delaware Action in Jan.
CENTRO: PwC Partner Denies Auditing Error Non-Disclosure Claims
CHINA NATURAL: Issues Correction to Class Action Press Release
COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Settles Ex-Manager's Discrimination Suit
DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES: July 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing
FACEBOOK: Class Action Over Credits May Have Merits
INTUIT INC: Sued Over Misclassified Employees and Owed OT Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: More Than 1,000 Australians Join Class Action
LIVE NATION: Final Approval of Settlement Set for May 2012
LIVE NATION: Units Ink Settlement of Resale Market Suits in Canada
LIVE NATION: Consolidated Suit Settlement Got Final Okay in Feb.
LIVE NATION: Anti-Competitive Practices MDL Remains Pending
LOOPNET INC: No Order Out on Proposed Merger-Related Suits Deal
MB FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
MERCK: Judge Issues All Writs Act Injunction in Vioxx MDL
PELEPHONE COMMUNICATION: Haifa Court Abandons Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "McDermid" Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Bourassa" Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Smith" Class Suit Set for July 2012
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Letourneau" Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: "Blais" Suit Remains Pending in Canadian Court
PHILIP MORRIS: Awaits Certification Bid Ruling in "El-Roy" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Brazil
PHILIP MORRIS: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Flue-Cured Tobacco Suit
SHELL OIL: Roxana Residents Sue Over Water Contamination
TD BANK: Overdraft Program Class Action Can Proceed
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Labor Law Violations Suit Still Pending in Mass.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Hears Arguments in Sudden-Acceleration Suit
WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend FLSA Suit in Illinois
WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend ACTONEL Suits in Canada
WCA WASTE: Inked Settlement to Dismiss Merger-Related Suits
WESTERN UNION: Two Colorado Lawsuits Stayed Pending Appeal
WYOMING: Seeks Dismissal of Redistricting Plan Suit
XEROX CORP: Faces Class Action in Wash. For Unpaid Overtime Work
* China's Draft Civil Law Amendment Limits Scale of Class Action
*********
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: School Dist. Sued for Handcuffing Girl
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeri Clausing, Dorie Turner and Jeff Martin, Jamie Stengle,
Michael Melia and Ivan Moreno, writing for The Associated Press,
reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed against
Albuquerque's public school district and its police department on
behalf of hundreds of kids arrested for minor offenses over the
past few years, including having cellphones in class, destroying a
history book and inflating a condom.
New Mexico teacher asked a 13-year-old girl to stop talking with
her friend and move to another seat. The girl refused. The
teacher called the police.
The case is among thousands across the country fueling a long-
simmering debate over when educators should bring in the police to
deal with disruptive students. A 6-year-old Georgia kindergartner
became the latest test case when she was hauled off in steel
handcuffs after throwing books and toys in a school tantrum.
"Kids are being arrested for being kids," said Shannon Kennedy, a
civil rights attorney who filed the class action.
Police were put in many schools across the country in the 1990s in
response to zero tolerance policies and tragedies like the
Columbine High massacre. But many overwhelmed teachers and
principals began turning to those officers to handle disciplinary
issues that in years past would have landed students in detention.
Frustrated teachers aren't getting enough support from above to
deal with increasingly extreme student behavior, from sexual
harassment in elementary school to children throwing furniture,
said Ellen Bernstein, president of the Albuquerque teachers'
union.
"There is more chronic and extreme disrespect, disinterest and
kids who basically don't care," Ms. Bernstein said.
Experts and educators point to a number of factors that lead to
the arrests: Some officers are operating without special training.
Some teachers fear that their physical intervention could lead to
lawsuits. School administrators are desperate to get the
attention of uninvolved parents. And overwhelmed teachers are
unaware that calling in the police to defuse a situation could
lead to serious criminal charges.
"I have had some concern for a while that the schools have relied
a little too heavily on police officers to handle disciplinary
problems," said Darrel Stephens, a former Charlotte, N.C., police
chief and executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs
Association.
There is little national data to back those assertions; no numbers
are tracked nationally on how often police are called in to arrest
students. Whether the children are actually charged and saddled
with criminal records varies by case and jurisdiction. Some
youngsters are charged with felonies. Some are freed without
further incident. Others receive tickets.
In Milledgeville, Ga., a city of 18,000 some 90 miles from
Atlanta, Salecia Johnson was accused of tearing items off the
walls and throwing books and toys in an outburst Friday at
Creekside Elementary. Police said she also threw a small shelf
that struck the principal in the leg, and jumped on a paper
shredder and tried to break a glass frame.
Police didn't say what set off the tantrum. Baldwin County (Ga.)
schools Superintendent Geneva Braziel called the student's
behavior "violent and disruptive" and said the police were needed
to keep the student, other classmates and the school staff safe.
Ms. Salecia was handcuffed and taken away in a patrol car to the
police station, where she was taken to a squad room and given a
soda, police said. She won't be charged with a crime.
Her aunt, Candace Ruff, said on April 24 the girl had complained
about the handcuffs; "she said they really hurt her wrists," she
said. The department's policy is to handcuff everyone arrested
regardless of age for safety reasons, police said.
In Florida, the use of police in schools came up several years ago
when officers arrested a kindergartner who threw a tantrum during
a jelly bean-counting contest. A bill was proposed this year to
restrict police from arresting kids for misdemeanors or other acts
that do not pose serious safety threats.
In Connecticut, court officials began tracking student arrests
after becoming concerned about referrals for minor offenses.
Since last March, nearly 1,700 students were arrested, almost two-
thirds of them for breach of peace, minor fights and disorderly
conduct.
In Texas, a December report from the nonprofit Texas Appleseed, a
public interest group, says more than 275,000 non-traffic tickets
are issued to juveniles each year. While it is unclear how many
are written at school, the group says the vast majority are for
offenses most commonly linked to incidents like disrupting the
class and disorderly conduct.
Texas Sen. John Whitmire said educators and police need to better
distinguish between who they are afraid of and who they are mad
at.
"If you are afraid of someone because they bring a gun or drugs,
of course we come down hard," Sen. Whitmire said. "It's the kids
that just make you mad that you don't need to make a crime."
In Albuquerque, which started tracking arrests after noticing more
minor cases coming from schools, more than 900 of the district's
90,000 students were referred to the criminal justice system in
the 2009-2010 school year. Of those, more than 500 were
handcuffed, arrested and brought to juvenile detention, officials
said. More than 200 were arrested for minor offenses, including
disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, refusing to obey and
interference with staff.
Preliminary numbers indicate arrests have fallen 53 percent since
the class-action lawsuit was filed in 2010, prompting law
enforcement officials to order more caution.
Albuquerque school officials have declined comment on school
arrests, citing the pending litigation.
But juvenile advocates and parents say first arrests could lead to
more trouble.
Annette Montano says her 13-year-old son was arrested at a middle
school for burping in gym class. The tension between him and
school officials led to several more run-ins, she said, including
a strip search after he was accused of selling drugs.
In Georgia, Salecia's family said the girl has been suspended for
the school year.
Her aunt said, "We would not like to see this happen to another
child, because it's horrifying."
APOLLO GROUP: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Gonzales, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports
that the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona approved
a securities class action settlement agreement with Apollo Group
Inc., which operates University of Phoenix.
According to an 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 24, Phoenix-based Apollo Group is required to
pay $14 million to the plaintiffs in the securities class action
lawsuit filed by the Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Chicago.
This agreement had been approved by the court preliminarily on
Nov. 28, 2011. As a result, Apollo put $14 million into a common
fund account on Dec. 5 and held as restricted funds on its Feb.
28, 2012 balance sheet.
Now that the settlement agreement has been finalized, the court
dismissed the lawsuit and vacated the judgment against Apollo
Group and the individual defendants, according to the SEC filing.
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Double-Billing
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Apple double-charges
customers for songs they buy from its iTunes store, a customer
claims in a class action in Santa Clara County Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Juel v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1-12-CV-
222854 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/26/AppleCA.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
Michael R. Rudick, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
- and -
John A. Kithas, Esq.
Chris D. Land, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. KITHAS
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1020
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 788-8100
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Sued Over Power-Sweep Auger Deficiencies
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Berkshire Hathaway, which owns co-defendant CBT
International, misrepresent the power and efficaciousness of their
power-sweep augers for grain unloading.
A copy of the Complaint in Flynn, et al. v. Berkshire Hathaway,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00068 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/26/BerkHath.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Phillip J. Barkett, Jr., Esq.
J. Michael Ponder COOK, Esq.
COOK, BARKETT, PONDER & WOLZ, L.C.
715 North Clark Post Office Box 1180
Cape Girardeau, MO 63702-1180
Telephone: (573) 335-6651
- and -
Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500 West
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
BP: Judge Hears Oil Spill Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in New Orleans
says he is "leaning in favor of" giving his preliminary approval
to a proposed class-action settlement that would resolve billions
of dollars in claims against BP over the 2010 oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico.
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier said during a hearing on April 25
that he plans to rule within a week on whether to preliminarily
approve the deal. Judge Barbier would hold a "fairness hearing"
later this year before deciding whether to give his final
approval.
The deal between BP and a team of plaintiffs' attorneys is
designed to resolve more than 100,000 claims by people and
businesses who blame economic losses on the spill.
BP estimates it will pay about $7.8 billion to resolve these
claims, but the settlement isn't capped.
CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Gold Dredge Mining Regulations
----------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Kosich, writing for Mineweb.com, reports that both sides
are now suing to block California's proposed new gold dredge
mining regulations issued March 19 by the California Department of
Fish and Game.
A coalition of environmental NGOs, fishermen and the Karuk Tribe
filed a lawsuit earlier this month to block the new gold dredge
regulations.
The Karuk Tribe originally filed a petition in Jan. 7, 2009, to
restrict the technique known as suction dredge mining to help save
struggling fisheries. The tribe argued hobby mining dredging
disturbed spawning gravels and kills salmon eggs and immature
lamprey and reintroduced mercury that settled on the bottom of the
rivers back into the environment.
In response, the California Legislature issued a seven-year
moratorium on suction mining in 2009 which will remain in effect
until 2016. The new regulations adopted by Fish and Game also do
not officially go into effect at that time.
Since the ban went into effect, California still permits other
types of prospecting or mining that does not use a suction nozzle
in state waterways.
A group of hobbyist and small weekend miners, known as the New
49ers, have filed a class action lawsuit asserting restrictions
imposed by the proposed regulations essentially ban the
exploitation of mining claims worth as much as $30 million.
"Under the regulations, numerous water bodies in California are
designated "Class A" and closed to suction dredge mining. In
addition . . . it is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction
dredge in areas within 100 yards of waters, that are closed to the
use of vacuum or suction dredges, which substantially expands the
areas where suction dredging is prohibited under the regulations,"
the lawsuit states.
The regulation also places a total cap of 1,500 on the number of
suction dredge permits that may be issued, "with no provision to
guarantee plaintiffs one of the limited number of permits," the
lawsuit notes. "This number is far, far below the number of
placer mining claims that can only be worked with suction
dredges."
In the class action suit, attorney James L. Buchal, who is
representing a number of current mining claimholders, argues the
mining claims constitute private property and "are not valuable to
plaintiffs for any purpose other than mining."
Mr. Buchal also argues California Fish and Game violated
California's Environmental Quality Act by allegedly failing to
provide an adequate analysis of reasonable alternatives. He also
asserts that the adverse economic impact of the new regulations on
California gold miners exceeds $50 million and constitutes a major
regulation, which requires more in depth study and data.
The lawsuit also contends California's regulation of suction
dredging interferes with federal mining law and policy,
particularly the 1872 Mining Law.
The plaintiffs ask the California Superior Court in Siskiyou
County to award damages in the amount of $50,000 per claim for
each plaintiff, as well as a writ of mandate. A petition for writ
of mandate seeks to ask a court to order California Fish and Game
to withdraw its proposed suction mining regulations on the grounds
the agency reportedly lacked the authority to take such actions.
CALIX INC: Court Certified Class in Delaware Action in Jan.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted in January the motion of
remaining lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Steinhardt v.
Howard-Anderson, et al., for class certification, and certified M
Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler as class representatives, according
to Calix, Inc.'s Feb. 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2011.
On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries and Occam, entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger and Reorganization. In response to the announcement of the
Merger Agreement, on September 17, 2010, September 20, 2010 and
September 21, 2010, three purported class action complaints were
filed by three purported stockholders of Occam in the California
Superior Court for Santa Barbara County: Kardosh v. Occam
Networks, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1371748), or the Kardosh
complaint; Kennedy v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al. (Case No.
1371762), or the Kennedy complaint; and Moghaddam v. Occam
Networks, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1371802), or the Moghaddam
complaint, respectively. The Kardosh, Kennedy and Moghaddam
complaints, which are referred to collectively as the California
class action complaints, are substantially similar. Each of the
California class action complaints names Occam, the pre-
acquisition members of the Occam board of directors and the
Company as defendants.
The California class action complaints generally allege that the
former members of the Occam board breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the acquisition of Occam by Calix, by, among
other things, engaging in an allegedly unfair process and agreeing
to an allegedly unfair price for the proposed merger transaction.
The California class action complaints further allege that Occam
and the other entity defendants aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in the California class
action complaints sought injunctive relief rescinding the merger
transaction and damages in an unspecified amount, as well as
costs, attorney's fees, and other relief. On November 2, 2010, the
three California class action complaints were consolidated into a
single action, with the plaintiffs in the Kurdosh complaint
appointed as the lead plaintiffs the lead action, and on November
19, 2010, the California Superior Court issued an order staying
the California class action complaints in favor of a substantively
identical stockholder class action pending in the Delaware Court
of Chancery. The California class action complaints remain stayed
under that order.
The Delaware Action
On October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery:
Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On
November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an amended complaint,
or the amended Steinhardt complaint. The amended Steinhardt
complaint names Occam and the members of the Occam board of
directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint does not
name Calix as a defendant.
Like the California class action complaints, the amended
Steinhardt complaint generally alleges that the members of the
Occam board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
acquisition of Occam by Calix, by, among other things, engaging in
an allegedly unfair process and agreeing to an allegedly unfair
price for the merger transaction. The amended Steinhardt complaint
also alleges that Occam and the former members of the Occam board
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose certain
allegedly material facts about the merger transaction in the
preliminary proxy statement and prospectus included in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 that Calix filed with the SEC
on November 2, 2010. The amended Steinhardt complaint sought
injunctive relief rescinding the merger transaction and award of
damages in an unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs,
attorney's fees, and other relief.
The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011.
On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for
sanctions brought by the defendants in the Delaware case against
certain of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead
plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management,
L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt
Plaintiffs" had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and
dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice.
The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i)
barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii)
required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose
their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead
plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5
million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the class
of former Occam stockholders.
On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court also granted the motion of
the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for
class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as
class representatives. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the class of
similarly situated former Occam stockholders, are expected to
continue to seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount. The
certified class is a non-opt-out class consisting of all owners of
Occam common stock whose shares were converted to shares of Calix
on the date of the merger transaction, with the exception of the
defendants in the Delaware action and their affiliates. On
February 4, 2012, the court entered an order giving effect to the
January 6, 2012 ruling, and further ordered that class members be
given notice of the certification order and notice that any class
member may seek to intervene in the case or to petition the court
to modify the certification order.
The Company believes that the allegations in the California
actions and the Delaware action are without merit and intend to
continue to vigorously contest the actions. However, there can be
no assurance that the Company will be successful in defending
these ongoing actions. In addition, the Company has obligations,
under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each
of the former Occam directors against judgments, fines,
settlements and expenses related to claims against such directors
and otherwise to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law
and Occam's bylaws and certificate of incorporation. The
obligations may apply to these lawsuits.
CENTRO: PwC Partner Denies Auditing Error Non-Disclosure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Wood, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the PricewaterhouseCoopers partner who presided over Centro's
2006-07 accounts has denied suggestions he failed to speak up
about errors in the group's accounts because he did not want to
draw attention to his own faults.
On his fifth day under cross-examination during a class action in
the Federal Court, Stephen Cougle also denied he tried to "bury"
one of the errors by putting it in one of the small-print notes at
the back of the final accounts. He repeatedly told the court on
April 24 that he was not responsible for auditing Centro's
compliance with the Australian Stock Exchange listing rules, so
when the error emerged in August 2007 and two senior Centro
managers said the company did not plan to disclose it via a
statement to the exchange he began to "ponder" what else might be
done.
"I just thought it was something where I was being constructively
proactive in making a suggestion to them [about disclosing it],"
Mr. Cougle said.
Centro and its auditors are being sued by two sets of shareholders
who claim they were misled and deceived because the property group
failed to properly disclose it had billions of dollars of debt
needing to be refinanced.
Mr. Cougle has declined to accept any responsibility for the
accounting debacle. He has blamed junior staff.
He said when one of his PwC colleagues told him in late August
that a AUD1.1 billion bridging loan had been wrongly classified as
a long-term debt in the unaudited, preliminary accounts, he
suggested Centro might need to disclose it publicly. When Centro
declined this idea, he decided one option was to point to the
discrepancy in a note to the final accounts. "I did not try to
'bury' it," he said "I was one of the people trying to do the
opposite."
CHINA NATURAL: Issues Correction to Class Action Press Release
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm on April 25 issued a
corrected press release announcing that Frazer Frost, LLP is not
presently known as Frost, PLLC.
A class action was 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.
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 and Friedman, LLP (alleged
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.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 25, 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.
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 (
COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Settles Ex-Manager's Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports
that a former manager at a Panera Bread in Mt. Lebanon has settled
his federal discrimination claim against the franchise owner,
according to court records.
Scott Donatelli claimed in the lawsuit that Covelli Enterprises of
Warren, Ohio, fired him from the Galleria mall store because he
has degenerative arthritis and refused to relegate minority
employees to working in jobs that kept them out of public view.
Two other former employees also have filed discrimination lawsuits
against Covelli. One is a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
current and former black employees. The other is by a former
assistant manager who claims the company fired her because it
prefers to employ younger women. Covelli has denied the
allegations in all the lawsuits.
U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry on April 23 ordered the
Donatelli case closed, based on a court-appointed mediator's
report that a settlement has been reached. The mediator's report
doesn't provide any details on the agreement.
Sam Cordes, the attorney for Mr. Donatelli, and company spokesman
Allen Ryan couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES: July 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP on
April 24 issued a statement pursuant to an order of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MASSACHUSETTS BRICKLAYERS AND MASONS TRUST FUNDS,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,:
Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-03178-LDW-ARL
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED DEUTSCHE ALT-B
SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-AB4 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES AND/OR DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
2006-AR5 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES DURING THE PERIOD
BETWEEN MAY 1, 2006 THROUGH MAY 30, 2007, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE
DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on July 11, 2012, at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Leonard D. Wexler at the Long Island Federal Courthouse,
944 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York 11722, for the purpose
of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims
in the Litigation for the sum of $32.5 million in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the
Settlement; (3) whether this Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement, dated as of March 15, 2012
("Stipulation"); (4) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5)
whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation should be approved.
If you purchased Deutsche Alt-B Securities Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-AB4 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates and/or Deutsche Alt-A
Securities Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR5 Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates during the period between May 1, 2006 through May 30,
2007, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the settlement of
this Litigation. If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies
by writing to Deutsche Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co.
LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990, or going to
http://www.gilardi.com/deutsche
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim postmarked no later than August 10, 2012, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than June 20,
2012, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above. All Settlement Class Members who do not timely
and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the
terms and conditions of the Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered such
that it is received by each of the following no later than June
20, 2012:
Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
100 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722-4438
Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs:
Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
E-mail: artl@rgrdlaw.com
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10005
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
Counsel for Defendants:
Jamie L. Wine
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
885 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-4834
E-mail: jamie.wine@lw.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs at the addresses
listed above or go to the following Web sites:
http://www.gilardi.com/deutsche
http://www.labaton.com
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
DATED: April 12, 2012
BY ORDER OF THE COURTUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK
FACEBOOK: Class Action Over Credits May Have Merits
---------------------------------------------------
Stephen Alexander, writing for Technorati, reports that a mother
is suing Facebook in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of parents
of children who have made credit card charges without their
knowledge. On Facebook, when a 13-year old signs up and agrees to
the terms and conditions of the site, a phrase says they should
consult a parent or guardian before buying Facebook Credits.
Facebook is relying upon that phrase to shield itself from parents
who say their children are making purchases without their consent.
In the terms and services of Facebook, it says, "If you are under
the age of 18, you may make payments only with the involvement of
a parent or guardian. You should review these Payment terms with
a parent or guardian to make sure that you both understand them."
Unjustifiably, Facebook is placing the burden on minor children to
make decisions regarding complex financial transactions.
The good news is, that in most if not all states, the rule of law
is that children are given a special power to void their contracts
at their option. In the effort to avoid commercial hustlers, who
would not hesitate to extract money from a child, some contracts
are void as they are detrimental to the child. Most other
contracts that are not for necessities of life are voidable by the
child unless the child takes steps to repudiate the contract.
This leaves Facebook with one legal defense and that is Facebook
is a necessity of life. And with 100s of millions of Facebook
users nationwide, who knows that a judge or jury will decide on
that issue.
INTUIT INC: Sued Over Misclassified Employees and Owed OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Finton, an individual California resident, and Chad
Smith, an individual California resident, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Intuit, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1-12-CV-
223023 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., April 24, 2012) is
brought on behalf of current and former employees of Intuit, who
are or were employed in the Defendants' locations in California
and held titles or positions containing titles as or similar to IT
and Engineering support or specialist or manager or analyst or
positions, QA and Quality Assurance specialist or engineer or
manager, business analyst, including all similar titles.
The Plaintiffs assert that they and the class they seek to
represent were given titles that were inconsistent and unrealistic
with the "job requirements and expectations" as defined by the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs argue that that the class members were
misclassified and are owed overtime and other remedies under
California law.
The Plaintiffs are residents of the state of California and are
former employees of the Defendants, who were non-exempt and who
were misclassified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the
applicable wage and hour laws of the state of California.
Intuit is a Delaware corporation with headquarters and primary
place of business in Mountain View, California. The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jose Garay, Esq.
JOSE GARAY, APLC
9900 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 208-3400
Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com
- and -
Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
Amy T. Wootton, Esq.
HAMNER LAW OFFICESO APC
555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 533-4160
Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
awootton@hamnerlaw.com
- and -
Glenn C. Nunes, Esq.
THE NUNES LAW GROUP
101 California Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 946-5894
Facsimile: (415) 946-8801
E-mail: glennnunes@me.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: More Than 1,000 Australians Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janelle Miles, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that more
than 1,000 Australians have joined a multimillion-dollar class
action against international pharmaceutical giant Johnson and
Johnson after receiving controversial metal-on-metal hip implants.
Law firms Maurice Blackburn and Shine Lawyers have joined forces
to jointly conduct the class action in the Federal Court in
Sydney.
NSW-based Maurice Blackburn managing principal Ben Slade said the
Australian damages claim was estimated to be worth more than
AUD200 million.
Brisbane man Stuart Cain is part of the legal case.
In June 2007, Mr. Cain received a hip implant manufactured by
DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson.
Three years later, DePuy recalled two versions of its metal-on-
metal ASR artificial hips due to a high early failure rate.
Mr. Cain, 42, has had to have the original implant replaced three
times after metal residue left from the DePuy hip "killed off" his
femur.
"I've had to stop work," the nurse educator said. "I've taken
leave without pay."
Although Johnson and Johnson has paid for his three replacement
hip implant surgeries, the last one about a month ago, Mr. Cain
said he feared losing his house because he was no longer earning
an income.
"My wife can't work because she's got to look after me," he said.
A Senate inquiry into medical devices, including hip replacements,
late last year recommended the Federal Health Department, as a
matter of urgency, consider the best way of establishing a process
to monitor the health effects in all patients who have received
metal-on-metal hip replacements.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, who instigated the inquiry, has
called for doctors to be required to notify patients with metal-
on-metal implants about the importance of having yearly blood
tests to monitor levels of cobalt, chromium and other toxic
metals.
Since the Australian inquiry, an analysis of data from the
National Joint Registry of England and Wales, published last month
in The Lancet, found that metal-on-metal replacements were more
likely to fail compared with other options and should not be
implanted.
Shine's National Special Projects partner Rebecca Jancauskas, who
is involved in the DePuy class action, said she was worried about
all metal-on-metal hip implants on the market, given the research.
"We're very concerned about the alarmingly high revision rates of
metal-on-metal hips across the board," she said.
LIVE NATION: Final Approval of Settlement Set for May 2012
----------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of a settlement of a lawsuit against Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s subsidiary, Ticketmaster, is set for
May 2012, according to the Company's Feb. 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.
In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, or UCL, and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.
The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in the Company's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and
the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs'
Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to
vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to
certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed their Motion to
Decertify Class.
In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding term sheet
that provided for the settlement of the litigation and the
resolution of all claims therein. The settlement was memorialized
in a long-form agreement in April 2011. In June 2011, after a
hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
settlement, the Court declined to approve the settlement reached
by the parties in its then-current form. Litigation continued, and
on September 2, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties reached a
new settlement on September 2, 2011 and subsequently entered into
a long-form agreement. The plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the new settlement on September 27, 2011.
In October 2011, the Court preliminarily approved the new
settlement. Ticketmaster has notified all class members of the
settlement, and a hearing on final approval of the settlement is
scheduled for May 2012. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation,
have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in
connection with the matter, but agreed to the settlement in order
to eliminate the uncertainties and expense of further protracted
litigation.
As of December 31, 2011, the Company has accrued $35.8 million,
the Company's best estimate of the probable costs associated with
the settlement referred to above. This liability includes an
estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the Company's
estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate the
Company experience will impact the final settlement amount;
however, the Company does not expect this difference to be
material.
LIVE NATION: Units Ink Settlement of Resale Market Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s subsidiaries have entered into a
settlement to resolve all claims in consumer class action lawsuits
pending in Canada, according to the Company's Feb. 24, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.
In February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in various provinces of Canada against TicketsNow,
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. and Premium Inventory, Inc.
All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and
causes of action. Each plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow from February
2007 to present and alleges that Ticketmaster conspired to divert
a large number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow
website at prices higher than face value. The plaintiffs
characterize these actions as being in violation of Ontario's
Ticket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the
Amusement Act of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.
The Ontario case contains the additional allegation that
Ticketmaster's and TicketsNow's service fees run afoul of anti-
scalping laws. Each lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the class.
As of December 31, 2011, the Company has accrued its best estimate
of the probable costs associated with the resale market claims of
this matter, the full amount of which was funded by an escrow
established in connection with Ticketmaster's 2008 acquisition of
TicketsNow.
In February 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that would, if approved by the courts, resolve all of the resale
market claims. The court approval process for the proposed
settlement has been commenced, with a motion for pre-approval
having been filed in Ontario, and is expected to take several
months. The Company estimates that the total cost of the
settlement will be within the amount that has been accrued.
While it is reasonably possible that a loss related to the primary
market claims of this matter could be incurred by the Company in a
future period, the Company does not believe that a loss is
probable of occurring at this time. Considerable uncertainty
remains regarding the validity of the claims and damages asserted
against us. As a result, the Company is currently unable to
estimate the possible loss or range of loss for the primary market
claims of this matter. the Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend all claims in all of the actions.
LIVE NATION: Consolidated Suit Settlement Got Final Okay in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit against Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s subsidiaries asserting causes of
action under various state consumer protection laws gained final
approval in February, according to the Company's Feb. 24, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.
From February through June 2009, eleven putative class action
lawsuits asserting causes of action under various state consumer
protection laws were filed against Ticketmaster and TicketsNow in
United States District Courts in California, New Jersey,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The lawsuits allege
that Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully deceived consumers by,
among other things, selling large quantities of tickets to
TicketsNow's ticket brokers, either prior to or at the time that
tickets for an event go on sale, thereby forcing consumers to
purchase tickets at significantly marked-up prices on
TicketsNow.com instead of Ticketmaster.com. The plaintiffs further
claim violation of the consumer protection laws by Ticketmaster's
alleged "redirecting" of consumers from Ticketmaster.com to
TicketsNow.com, thereby engaging in false advertising and an
unfair business practice by deceiving consumers into inadvertently
purchasing tickets from TicketsNow for amounts greater than face
value. The plaintiffs claim that Ticketmaster has been unjustly
enriched by this conduct and seek compensatory damages, a refund
to every class member of the difference between tickets' face
value and the amount paid to TicketsNow, an injunction preventing
Ticketmaster from engaging in further unfair business practices
with TicketsNow and attorneys' fees and costs. In July 2009, all
of the cases were consolidated and transferred to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint in
September 2009, to which Ticketmaster filed its answer the
following month. In July 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment. In April 2011, the parties filed a Stipulation
wherein they stated that they have agreed on all material terms of
a proposed settlement. On October 17, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in accordance with
the terms to which the parties had previously agreed. On October
31, 2011, the District Court entered an Order Preliminarily
Approving the Settlement Agreement and Certifying a Class for
Settlement Purposes. Ticketmaster has notified all class members
of the settlement. At a fairness hearing conducted on February 13,
2012, the court gave final approval to the settlement. As of
December 31, 2011, the Company has accrued its best estimate of
the probable costs associated with this settlement. This liability
includes an estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the
Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate
the Company experience will impact the final settlement amount;
however, the Company does not expect this difference to be
material.
LIVE NATION: Anti-Competitive Practices MDL Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-two consolidated lawsuits against Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc. remains pending before the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the Company's Feb. 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.
The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Malinda
Heerwagen in June 2002 in United States District Court. The
plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
concert ticket purchasers, alleged that anti-competitive practices
for concert promotion services by the Company nationwide caused
artificially high ticket prices. In August 2003, the District
Court ruled in the Company's favor, denying the plaintiff's class
certification motion. The plaintiff appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals. In January 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed,
and the plaintiff then dismissed her action that same month.
Subsequently, twenty-two putative class actions were filed by
different named plaintiffs in various United States District
Courts throughout the country, making claims substantially similar
to those made in the Heerwagen action, except that the geographic
markets alleged are regional, statewide or more local in nature,
and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals
who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic
markets alleged. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory,
punitive and treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and
costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. The Company has filed
its answers in some of these actions and has denied liability. In
April 2006, granting the Company's motion, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred these actions to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In June 2007, the District
Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and also that month the Court entered an order to
stay all proceedings pending the Court's ruling on class
certification. In October 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion and certified classes in the Chicago, New England, New
York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional
markets. In November 2007, the Court extended its stay of all
proceedings pending further developments in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In February 2008, the
Company filed with the District Court a Motion for Reconsideration
of its October 2007 class certification order. In October 2010,
the District Court denied the Company's Motion for Reconsideration
and lifted the stay of all proceedings. In February 2011, the
Company filed with the District Court a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment Regarding Statute of Limitations. In April 2011, the
District Court granted the Company's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. In November 2011, the Company filed with the District
Court a Motion for Class Decertification, Motion to Exclude
Testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness, and Motions for
Summary Judgment in the actions pertaining to the Colorado and
Southern California regional markets. Trial of the action
involving the Southern California regional market is currently
scheduled for April 2012 in the District Court. In February 2012,
the Company participated in a court-ordered settlement mediation
with plaintiffs' counsel with respect to two of the regional
cases. No settlement was reached, and the mediation was scheduled
to resume in April 2012. While the Company does not believe that a
loss is probable of occurring at this time, if any or all of the
cases proceed to trial and plaintiffs are awarded damages, the
amount of any such award could be substantial. Considerable
uncertainty remains regarding the validity of the claims and
damages asserted against the Company. As a result, the Company is
currently unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
for this matter. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend all claims in all of the actions.
LOOPNET INC: No Order Out on Proposed Merger-Related Suits Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
No court order has been reported concerning Loopnet, Inc.'s
proposed settlement contained a memorandum of understanding signed
in June 2011 resolving stockholders' class action lawsuits
challenging its proposed merger with CoStar Group, Inc.
On April 27, 2011, LoopNet and the CoStar Group, Inc. ("CoStar")
announced the signing of a merger agreement for the acquisition of
LoopNet by CoStar (the "Merger"), which was approved by LoopNet's
stockholders at a special meeting on July 11, 2011. Completion of
the Merger remains subject to the expiration or termination of the
waiting period imposed by the Hart-Scott Rodino Antitrust
Improvement Act of 1976 as amended, and satisfaction or waiver of
the other closing conditions specified in the merger agreement.
The Merger was expected to close by the end of 2011.
The Company and its board of directors and CoStar have been named
as defendants in three putative class action lawsuits brought by
alleged stockholders challenging Loopnet's proposed merger with
CoStar. Two of the actions, Raymond E. Williams Jr. v. LoopNet,
Inc., et al. and Ronald T. West v. Richard Boyle, et al., were
filed on or around May 3, 2011 and Ronald T. West v. Richard
Boyle, et al. was amended on May 20, 2011. The third action, Karin
Cahill v. LoopNet, Inc., et al., was filed on June 3, 2011. All
three actions were filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco. The complaints generally allege, among
other things, that each member of the board breached his fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by authorizing the sale of
the Company to CoStar for consideration that does not maximize
value to the shareholders and engineering the transaction to
benefit themselves without regard to the Company's shareholders.
The complaints also generally allege that the Company (and, in the
case of the Ronald T. West action, CoStar) aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the board and made incomplete or materially misleading disclosures
about the proposed transaction. The shareholder actions seek
equitable relief, including an injunction against consummating the
merger.
On June 21, 2011, counsel for the parties in the lawsuits entered
into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on the
terms of a settlement of all litigation, which would include the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of the
defendants. The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among
other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of
settlement, consummation of the merger and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the court. In addition, in connection with
the settlement and as provided in the memorandum of understanding,
the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will seek an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement.
There can be no assurance that the Merger will be consummated,
that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if
the parties enter into such stipulation. In such event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated. The settlement will not affect
the amount of the merger consideration that the Company's
stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger.
No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2011.
MB FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Krause, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MB Financial Bank, N.A., an Illinois banking
corporation, Case No. 2012-CH-14607 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
April 19, 2012) is seeking monetary damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief from MB Financial arising from its alleged
unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees.
On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff seeks actual, compensatory, and punitive damages under
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Even more egregious, Ms. Krause contends, MB Financial maximizes
overdraft penalties imposed on customers via a practice of
reordering customers' debit transactions from the largest to the
smallest dollar value instead of in chronological order, the
result of which is that overdraft penalties are assessed on
customer accounts even if they had sufficient funds in the account
at the time the overdraft fees are charged.
Ms. Krause is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. She was charged
multiple overdraft fees for the payment of ATM or one-time debit
card transactions.
MB Financial is a subsidiary of MB Financial, Inc., which
maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in
Chicago, Illinois. MB Financial provides retail banking services
to tens of thousands of consumers, including the Plaintiff and
members of the Class, which include issuing debit cards for use by
its customers in conjunction with their checking accounts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
aek@wexlerwallace.com
- and -
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
- and -
Greg Coleman, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
550 West Main Ave., Suite 600
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Chuck Crueger, Esq.
Erin Dickinson, Esq.
HANSEN RIEDERER DICKINSON CRUEGER & REYNOLDS LLC
316 N. Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 273-8475
Facsimile: (414) 273-8476
E-mail: charles@hrdc-law.com
erin@hrdc-law.com
MERCK: Judge Issues All Writs Act Injunction in Vioxx MDL
---------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that on the eve of the first state
court consumer class action trial over Merck's Vioxx painkiller,
the federal judge overseeing the Vioxx federal multidistrict
litigation issued a rare All Writs Act injunction barring
plaintiffs from "double-dipping" in the state case. The ruling
effectively bars Missouri consumers from presenting their key
damages expert at trial.
PELEPHONE COMMUNICATION: Haifa Court Abandons Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
On April 23, 2012, Bezeq the Israeli Telecomunictn Corp. Ltd.
received notice from its subsidiary Pelephone Communications Ltd.,
of the decision of the Haifa District Court to allow abandonment
of a claim and application for its certification as a class action
in the amount of NIS285 million. The claim was filed against
Pelephone in November 2011, alleging that Pelephone recorded
service calls of its customers at service stations without their
knowledge and without halting the recording when the service
representative was not with them on the line, thereby violating
their right to privacy.
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary motions are pending in a class action lawsuit pending
in Saskatchewan, Canada, according to Philip Morris International
Inc.'s February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.
In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.),
and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco
products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She
is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf
of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or
suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.
PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., remains pending in Canada.
In the class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, Philip Morris International Inc. and
its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe
asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. In September
2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he did not
anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan.
No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2011.
PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., remains pending in Alberta,
Canada, according to Philip Morris International Inc.'s
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
In the class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the Company's subsidiaries, and the
Company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products
and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from
the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government
health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. To date,
the Company and its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees have not
been properly served with the complaint. No activity in this case
is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action
filed in Saskatchewan.
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "McDermid" Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit captioned McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited, et al., pending in British Columbia, Canada, according to
the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.
In the class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the Company and its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members
of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart
disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by
smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have filed
jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action should
not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class action.
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Bourassa" Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit captioned Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited, et al., pending in British Columbia, Canada, according to
the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.
In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the Company and its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members
of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a
deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco
products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from
chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their
estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of
revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date
the claim was filed. Defendants have filed jurisdictional
challenges on the grounds that this action should not proceed
during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class action.
PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., remains pending in Nova
Scotia, Canada, according to Philip Morris International Inc.'s
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.
In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.),
and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff,
an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco
products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He
is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf
of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,
dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products. No activity in this case is anticipated while
plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in
Saskatchewan.
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Smith" Class Suit Set for July 2012
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a class action lawsuit pending in Kansas is set for July
2012, according to Philip Morris International Inc.'s February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
In the antitrust class action in Kansas, Smith v. Philip Morris
Companies Inc., et al., District Court of Seward County, Kansas,
filed February 7, 2000, the Company and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant
cigarette companies engaged in an international conspiracy to fix
wholesale prices of cigarettes and sought certification of a class
comprised of all persons in Kansas who were indirect purchasers of
cigarettes from the defendants. The plaintiff claims unspecified
economic damages resulting from the alleged price-fixing, trebling
of those damages under the Kansas price-fixing statute and counsel
fees. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification in 2001. Defendants' motions for summary judgment
were argued in January 2012. In the event the summary judgment
motions are not granted, the court has set a trial date in July
2012.
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend "Letourneau" Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Cecilia Letourneau
in Canada remains pending, according to Philip Morris
International Inc.'s February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
In the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of
the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was
certified in 2005. Pre-trial proceedings are ongoing. On February
14, 2012, the court ruled that the federal government will remain
as a third-party in the case. Trial was scheduled to begin on
March 12, 2012.
PHILIP MORRIS: "Blais" Suit Remains Pending in Canadian Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais remains pending in Canadian
court, according to Philip Morris International Inc.'s February
24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
In the class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the Company's
subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The
plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker,
are seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each
member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-
related diseases. The class was certified in 2005. Pre-trial
proceedings are ongoing. On February 14, 2012, the court ruled
that the federal government will remain as a third-party in the
case. Trial was scheduled to begin on March 12, 2012.
PHILIP MORRIS: Awaits Certification Bid Ruling in "El-Roy" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. is awaiting a court decision with
respect to a motion for class certification in a lawsuit pending
in Israel, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.
In the first class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the Company's
subsidiary and the Company's indemnitees (PM USA and the Company's
former importer) are defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purported
class action claiming that the class members were misled by the
descriptor "lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are
safer than full flavor cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery of the
purchase price of lights cigarettes and compensation for distress
for each class member. Hearings took place in November and
December 2008 regarding whether the case meets the legal
requirements necessary to allow it to proceed as a class action.
The parties' briefing on class certification was completed in
March 2011. A hearing for final oral argument on class
certification took place in November 2011. The Company is awaiting
the court's decision.
The claims in a second class action pending in Israel, Navon, et
al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against the Company's
indemnitee (our distributor) and other members of the industry are
similar to those in El-Roy, and the case is currently stayed
pending a ruling on class certification in El-Roy.
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Brazil
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. continues to defend two class
action lawsuits pending in Brazil, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, the Company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive
relief.
In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of
Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6,
2007, the Company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the
Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i)
unspecified damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former
smokers, and their relatives; (ii) unspecified damages on behalf
of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and
their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal
District. In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial
court limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo
only. In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo
issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because
the case involved issues similar to the ADESF case discussed above
and should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in
Sao Paulo where the ADESF case is pending. The court further
stated that these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of
judgment. The Company's subsidiary appealed this decision to the
State of Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which subsequently declared
the case stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. In April 2010,
the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh Civil Court's
decision that consolidated the cases, finding that they are based
on different legal claims and are progressing at different stages
of proceedings. This case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court
of Sao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary filed its closing
arguments in December 2010.
PHILIP MORRIS: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Flue-Cured Tobacco Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the breach of contract lawsuit
over flue-cured tobacco, according to the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
In the breach of contract action in Ontario, Canada, The Ontario
Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, et al. v. Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc., Superior Court of Justice, London, Ontario,
Canada, filed November 5, 2009, the Company's subsidiary is a
defendant. Plaintiffs in this putative class action allege that
the Company's subsidiary breached contracts with the proposed
class members (Ontario tobacco growers and their related
associations) concerning the sale and purchase of flue-cured
tobacco from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1996. Plaintiffs
allege that the Company's subsidiary was required by the contracts
to disclose to plaintiffs the quantity of tobacco included in
cigarettes to be sold for duty free and export purposes (which it
purchased at a lower price per pound than tobacco that was
included in cigarettes to be sold in Canada), but failed to
disclose that some of the cigarettes it designated as being for
export and duty free purposes were ultimately sold in Canada. The
Company's subsidiary has been served, but there is currently no
deadline to respond to the statement of claim. In September 2011,
plaintiffs served a notice of motion seeking class certification.
SHELL OIL: Roxana Residents Sue Over Water Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that residents of the town of Roxana claim their health is in
danger after a variety of oil refineries have allegedly
contaminated the town's property and water.
Jeana Parko, Delbert R. Cobine, Janice A. Cobine and Rodger
Jennings filed a putative class action lawsuit April 16 in Madison
County Circuit Court against Shell Oil Company, Equilon
Enterprises, ConocoPhillips Company, WRB Refining, ConocoPhillips
WRB Partners and Cenovus GPCO.
Derek Y. Brandt -- dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com --, G. Michael Stewart
-- mstewart@simmonsfirm.com -- and Jo Anna Pollock --
jpollock@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
Angelides and Barnerd in Alton will be representing them. Melissa
K. Sims of Melissa K. Sims Law Office in Peru; and Paul J. Hanly
Jr. -- phanly@hanlyconroy.com --, Jayne Conroy --
jconroy@hanlyconroy.com -- and Andrea Bierstein --
abierstein@hanlyconroy.com -- of Hanly, Conroy, Bierstein,
Sheridan, Fisher and Hayes in New York are serving of counsel.
The defendants also face a growing number of personal injury suits
on behalf of individuals claiming benzene exposure resulted in
their development of leukemia.
In the new complaint, the residents claim they have been exposed
to various contaminants, including benzene, which may cause them
to develop cancer and other health issues.
The oil refineries, which have been in existence since 1917 and
have been refining oil since 1918, began accidentally releasing
massive amounts of benzene, hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan and
sulfur dioxide beginning in the 1980s through leaks, the suit
states. The contaminants were either released into the ground or
the air during the numerous spills, the complaint says.
"Defendants' releases and spills of petroleum products from
leaking pipes and storage tanks, transfer of product, equipment
failures, and fires have contaminated and continue to contaminate
the ground of the Village," the suit states. "Defendants'
releases of volatile organic compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons,
hydrogen sulfide, methyl marcaptan, sulfur dioxide, and aluminum
silicate catalyst have contaminated and continue to contaminate
the air."
In addition to the soil and air contaminants, the engineering firm
URS Corporation discovered the existence of two groundwater
plumes. Groundwater plumes are volumes of contaminated
groundwater that extend from a specific source. The two plumes
are contaminated with benzene, which leaked from a pipeline spill
in the area south/southwest of Roxana, and petroleum products from
a refinery to the east, the suit states. The plumes exist in the
southern portion of Roxana, the complaint says.
Groundwater pumping performed at the refinery site has also spread
contaminants throughout the town, the plaintiffs claim.
"Ordinarily, any benzene in the groundwater would follow the
groundwater gradient to the west," the suit states. "The
groundwater pumping, however, pulls groundwater toward the
Refinery pumping centers, back to the northeast and under the
southern portion of the Village's residential area."
Benzene and other toxic chemicals have also made their way to
certain surface waters via a running water drainage ditch that
flows south along Old Edwardsville Road and Illinois Route 111.
The ditch passes within several hundred feet of the Roxanna Water
Treatment Facility, which provides all of the drinking water for
the town, the village claims.
Excessive storm water discharge near the facility also diverts to
Grassy Lake, which sits across from the drainage ditch. Smith
Lake and Conoco Lake may also be contaminated. The lakes, which
house various wildlife, are also used for recreation and fishing,
according to the complaint.
The contaminants in the water and soil can cause various diseases.
For instance, benzene is known to cause cancer; ethylbenzene,
which is found in oil, may cause eye and throat irritation,
vertigo and dizziness; toluene may result in headaches, dizziness,
tiredness, memory loss, nausea and loss of appetite; and n-hexane,
a chemical made from crude oil, can cause nerve disorders, the
village claims.
Not only are they concerned about their health, but the plaintiffs
claim they also fear for the value of their properties.
"The contamination has reduced or destroyed the value of these
properties," the suit states. "The contamination of these
properties has caused great economic loss to Plaintiffs and the
other owners of these properties."
The plaintiffs allege negligence, trespass, public nuisance,
private nuisance and unjust enrichment against the defendants.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory or restorative damages of more
than $250,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems just.
They are also asking the court to implement a medical monitoring
program, which would track the plaintiffs' health.
Madison County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-483.
TD BANK: Overdraft Program Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a putative consumer class
action by TD Bank customers over overdraft protection policies has
survived a motion to dismiss in federal court in New Jersey. The
plaintiffs claim the bank automatically placed them in the
overdraft protection program without a chance to opt out.
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Labor Law Violations Suit Still Pending in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, Inc. is defending itself against a class action
lawsuit in Massachusetts alleging that the Company violated labor
laws, according to a Feb. 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.
On January 19, 2011, a civil case styled as a class action
complaint titled Jenna Crenshaw, Andrew Brickley, et al, and all
others similarly situated v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas
Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, Texas Roadhouse of Everett, LLC and Texas
Roadhouse Management Corp., d/b/a Texas Roadhouse was filed. The
complaint was subsequently amended to add additional plaintiffs.
The complaint is pending in the United States District Court,
District of Massachusetts, Civil Action Number 1:11-cv-10549. The
complaint alleges a failure to comply with Massachusetts labor
laws, specifically that the Company improperly shared pooled tips
with ineligible employees in all of the Company's restaurants in
Massachusetts. Currently, the Company operates nine restaurants in
the state. The Company has filed an answer denying all material
allegations and are in discovery. Additionally, the Company has
agreed to participate in mediation.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Hears Arguments in Sudden-Acceleration Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that U.S. District Judge James Selna heard arguments on his
tentative order during an afternoon hearing on April 23 in the
litigation over sudden acceleration by Toyota vehicles. Steve
Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
co-lead counsel in the consolidated class action, argued that
Toyota's line of reasoning would have plaintiffs "drive a ticking
time bomb and wait till it explodes" before they bring a case.
"I'm disappointed with the tentative," he said later. "This is
kind of a unique case where you have thousands of crashes,
hundreds of deaths."
Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore issued a statement following
the hearing: "We believe the law is clear -- plaintiffs from New
York and Florida who continue to operate their vehicles and do not
allege to have experienced unintended acceleration or incurred an
economic loss have no legally recognizable claims against Toyota
under these states' laws."
A federal judge has tentatively dismissed the economic damages
claims of consumers in Florida and New York against Toyota Motor
Corp. on the ground that they hadn't actually experienced the
problem.
The April 23 tentative ruling by U.S. District Judge James Selna
in Santa Ana, Calif., would not affect consumers in California or
other states, but, if finalized, could wipe out a substantial
number of claims in the master class action complaint against
Toyota.
Judge Selna was scheduled to hear arguments on his tentative order
during an afternoon hearing on April 23.
Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, co-lead counsel in the consolidated class action, did not
return a call for comment, and Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore
declined to comment.
If made final, the ruling would amount to a big win for Toyota,
which is seeking to gut the claims that consumers in California,
Florida and New York are entitled to economic damages because the
company made false and misleading statements about the safety of
its vehicles under the laws of their respective states. The
plaintiffs claim that, as a result of Toyota's alleged undisclosed
defects associated with sudden acceleration, their vehicles lost
value.
Such economic-damages claims represent 200 of the 300 cases in the
multidistrict litigation. The rest would be unaffected because
they were filed on behalf of individuals who were injured or died
in accidents attributed to sudden acceleration.
The consolidated class action, filed on behalf of 27 named
plaintiffs, is scheduled for trial on July 31, 2013.
On March 12, Judge Selna rejected Toyota's move to dismiss 20 of
the named plaintiffs on the basis that their claims should be
arbitrated. As for the 15 named plaintiffs in California, Judge
Selna concluded that Toyota had too aggressively pursued its
defense in court and in any event had waited too long to pursue
arbitration. Regarding the remaining five plaintiffs -- one in
New York and four in Florida -- Judge Selna found that the
dealerships, not Toyota, had the right to enforce arbitration
provisions signed by consumers in their purchase and lease
agreements.
Toyota has petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal of that
ruling.
Judge Selna's latest ruling addressed a separate motion to dismiss
in which Toyota argued that nine of the 14 plaintiffs in New York
and Florida have not alleged a product defect under the laws of
those states. Toyota also moved to dismiss six plaintiffs in
California who experienced no defect, citing an Oct. 18 ruling by
California's Second District Court of Appeal in American Honda
Motor Co. v. Superior Court, which found that a consumer must have
experienced a defect or be "substantially certain" that a defect
could occur.
Judge Selna did not address the California plaintiffs in his
tentative order.
He dismissed four of the five claims brought by Florida named
plaintiffs, concluding that they had not experienced an
acceleration defect as required under Florida law. He upheld the
claims of the fifth named plaintiff, whose vehicle allegedly
experienced the defect. Also regarding that remaining Florida
named plaintiff, Judge Selna upheld consumer claims under
Florida's Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
He dismissed the claims of a New York couple whose vehicle had not
experienced an acceleration defect. He upheld another couple's
claims because they had sufficiently alleged a defect and the
claims of a third named plaintiff who had traded in her Prius for
a reduced amount.
In so doing, Judge Selna found that "the New York Class
Representatives may not maintain their claims against the Toyota
Defendants in the absence of allegations regarding a manifested
defect or the actual or attempted resale of a vehicle that
reflects a loss in value as a result of the defect."
Regarding those named plaintiffs in New York whose cases he
upheld, Judge Selna ruled that claims under the New York Consumer
Protection Act could go forward as long as consumers purchased
their vehicles after November 2006 under the statute of
limitations.
He upheld various other claims in both states, including
fraudulent concealment, as long as consumers had vehicles with
actual acceleration defects.
The case is the second consolidated consumer class action in the
sudden acceleration litigation. The first one, filed on behalf of
a proposed nationwide class under California law, fell apart after
Judge Selna ruled on June 8 that consumers who lived in states
other than California could not pursue economic damages under that
state's law. On Sept. 20, the plaintiffs steering committee filed
an amended class action limiting the case to consumers in
California, New York and Florida.
WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend FLSA Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
In August 2010, an affiliate of Warner Chilcott Public Limited
Company was served with a complaint in a class and collective
action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law. The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a former
pharmaceutical sales representative of defendant, on behalf of
herself and other sales representatives. The suit alleges that
defendant improperly categorized its pharmaceutical sales
representatives as "exempt" rather than "non-exempt" employees and
as a result, wrongfully denied them overtime compensation.
Plaintiff is seeking damages for unpaid overtime, including back
pay, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees.
Other pharmaceutical companies have been the subject of similar
lawsuits. Defendant believes it has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend this action vigorously. This case is in the
early stages of litigation, and an estimate of the range of
potential losses to the Company, if any, relating to these
proceedings is not possible at this time.
No updates were reported in the Company's February 24, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.
WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend ACTONEL Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company continues to defend itself
against four product liability class actions in Canada, according
to the Company's Feb. 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
The Company is a defendant in approximately 139 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 176 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 323 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to the Company's bisphosphonate
prescription drug ACTONEL. The claimants allege, among other
things, that ACTONEL caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw, a rare but serious condition that involves severe loss or
destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the
femur. All of the cases have been filed in either federal or state
courts in the United States. The Company is in the initial stages
of discovery in these litigations. The 176 unfiled claims involve
potential plaintiffs that have agreed, pursuant to a tolling
agreement, to postpone the filing of their claims against the
Company in exchange for the Company's agreement to suspend the
statutes of limitations relating to their potential claims. In
addition, the Company is aware of four purported product liability
class actions that were brought against the Company in provincial
courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that ACTONEL caused
the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested ACTONEL
to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It is expected
that these plaintiffs will seek class certification. The Company
is reviewing these lawsuits and potential claims and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.
WCA WASTE: Inked Settlement to Dismiss Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
WCA Waste Corporation entered into a settlement to dismiss merger-
related class action complaints, according to the Company's
February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
On December 29, 2011, a putative stockholder class action
complaint related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and
among the Company, Cod Intermediate, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and Cod Merger Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent was filed by
Tammy Newman, a purported stockholder of WCA, in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas. Parent is indirectly owned by
Macquarie Infrastructure Partners II U.S., L.P. and Macquarie
Infrastructure Partners II International, L.P. The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on February 3, 2012. The complaint, as
amended alleges that Board of Directors of WCA, WCA, MIP II US and
MIP II International violated applicable law by breaching and/or
aiding and abetting the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, candor, independence, good
faith and fair dealing. Among other remedies sought, the lawsuit
seeks to enjoin the proposed Merger, unless and until the Company
adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain a merger
agreement providing the highest possible value for stockholders
and discloses all material information to stockholders about the
Merger. On February 15, 2012, another putative stockholder class
action complaint was filed in the District Court of Harris County,
Texas, styled Graham v. WCA Waste Corp., et al., No. 2012-09500.
In that suit, the plaintiff purports to assert similar claims
against, and seek similar relief with respect to, the same
defendants as in the Newman Action. The Company anticipates that
the Graham Action will be consolidated with the Newman Action.
On February 14, 2012, the Company and the other parties to the
Newman and the Graham Actions reached a settlement in principle,
which provides for the dismissal with prejudice of the Newman
Action and the Graham Action and a release of the defendants by a
stockholder class from all present and future claims asserted in
the Newman Action or the Graham Action (or otherwise relating to
the Merger) in exchange for, among other things, the supplemental
disclosure contained in this Supplement #1. In addition, as part
of the settlement in principle, the Company (or its insurers or
successors) has agreed to pay an amount not to exceed $350,000, or
such lesser amount as the Court may award, to plaintiffs' counsel
for their fees and expenses. The proposed settlement is subject to
further definitive documentation and to a number of conditions,
including, without limitation, the completion of certain
reasonable discovery by the plaintiffs and court approval of the
proposed settlement. There is no assurance these conditions will
be satisfied.
The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to the Company's stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger or the timing of the special meeting of stockholders that
was scheduled for March 8, 2012.
WESTERN UNION: Two Colorado Lawsuits Stayed Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stayed
two pending purported class action lawsuits filed against Western
Union Co. in Colorado pending a ruling on an appeal over the
District Court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration,
according to the Company's Feb. 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2011.
The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille
complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended
complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court
dismissed plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory
relief claim and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. as a
defendant. On April 25, 2011, the Company and Western Union
Financial Services, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. Western Union
Financial Services, Inc. also moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. On
November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel
arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the
decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the
District Court proceedings pending their appeal. The plaintiffs
have not sought and the Court has not granted class certification.
The Company and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. intend to
vigorously defend themselves against both lawsuits. However, due
to the preliminary stages of these lawsuits, the fact the
plaintiffs have not quantified their damage demands, and the
uncertainty as to whether they will ever be certified as class
actions, the potential outcome cannot be determined.
WYOMING: Seeks Dismissal of Redistricting Plan Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press, citing The Wyoming Tribune Eagle, reports
that Wyoming's attorney general wants a district judge in Cheyenne
to dismiss a lawsuit fighting the state's redistricting plan.
The Wyoming Tribune Eagle reports Greg Phillips recently filed the
state's response, arguing the proper procedures weren't followed
to qualify the seven plaintiffs to be eligible for a class-action
suit.
The residents sued earlier this month in Laramie County District
Court to try to overturn the Legislature's recently adopted
redistricting work. They argue the plan doesn't adequately
represent some of the state's more sparsely populated counties.
Mr. Phillips also says the residents, as individuals, have not
proven they meet the threshold that they have a proven personal
stake in the outcome in the case. But the plaintiffs' attorney,
Nick Carter, says his clients do have a stake because they live in
affected districts.
XEROX CORP: Faces Class Action in Wash. For Unpaid Overtime Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Xerox and its affiliates
LiveBridge and Affiliated Computer Services make employees work
off the clock and stiff them for overtime, a worker claims in a
federal class action.
A copy of the Complaint in Hill v. Xerox Corporation, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-00717 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/26/XeroxCA.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Marc C. Cote, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com
mcote@tmdwlaw.com
- and -
Jon W. MacLeod, Esq.
MACLEOD LLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 357-8470
E-mail: jwm@jwmacleodlaw.com
* China's Draft Civil Law Amendment Limits Scale of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhao Yinan, writing for China Daily, reports that a draft legal
amendment on April 24 proposed to further limit the scale of
entities that can file class-action lawsuits in the country, a
move described by experts as inconsistent with rising calls to
better protect public interests.
The draft amendment to the Civil Procedure Law, which went before
the National People's Congress Standing Committee for a second
reading, stipulates that plaintiffs of class-action lawsuits --
cases in which a large group of people collectively go to court to
defend public interests -- should be limited to "government
agencies as provided by law and social organizations".
The latest change in the clause sets a harsher restriction on
plaintiffs of class-action suits, compared with the earlier
version submitted to the top legislature in October, which
entitled "relevant authorities and social organizations" to file
such a case, especially for those involving environmental
pollution or unsafe food incidents.
Li Shishi, deputy director of the NPC Law Committee, told
lawmakers on April 24 that standing laws have empowered the State
Oceanic Administration to file such a claim if "severe damage" is
done to the oceanic environment, and the Law Committee is also
considering endowing the right of action to associations of
consumer protection.
The prudent proposal, Li said, is meant to ensure a sound practice
as well as avoid overuse of such claims, relatively "newborn" in
China.
However, Tang Weijian, a professor of civil procedure, argued the
proposed section was short on details and failed to consider
academic research and legal practice in class-action suits.
Pilot projects have established 61 environment courts in China
since 2008, but local initiatives have seen little improvement on
the national level to promote such practice.
Luo Dongchuan, deputy director of the Supreme People's Court's
research department, said not all the cases heard in an
environment court can be categorized as class-action lawsuits. He
said fewer than 20 suits concerning public interests have been
filed and heard in the country in the past decade.
In a highlighted claim arising from the oil leaks of
ConocoPhillips in North China's Bohai Bay in 2011, the energy
giant has agreed to pay 1 billion yuan ($158 million) to settle
compensation with fishermen.
But Zhao Jingwei, a lawyer representing 107 households of
fishermen from nearby Hebei province, said although some of his
clients do not agree with the compensation, the court has declined
to file a case for them.
A veteran lawyer in environmental proceedings, Zhao said the
phrase "administrative bodies authorized by law", as proposed in
the second reading, has made the possibility of filing a public-
interest case small.
*********
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 * * *