/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120516.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 96 Headlines ANZ BANK: High Court to Hear Class Action Over "Exception Fees" APOLLO GLOBAL: Antitrust Law Violations Suit Remains Pending APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in California APPLE INC: Disputes iPod Antitrust Class Action AVIS BUDGET: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over ETD Convenience Fees BEST BUY: Geek Squad Workers File Wage & Hour Class Action BOEING CO: Awaits Rulings on Summary Judgment Bids in Ill. Suit BOEING CO: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violation Suits in Kansas BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Order Denying Reconsideration Bid C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Various Product Liability Lawsuits CANADA: Injured Soldiers to File Benefits Class Action CARMAX INC: Appeal From Order Compelling Arbitration Pending CHARLES SCHWAB: Loses Bid to Halt FINRA Class Action CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Pomerantz Provides Update on Class Action COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Faces Acquisition-Related Suit in Delaware COOPER COMPANIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Calif. COPART INC: Continues to Defend "Ortiz-Torres" Class Suit COPART INC: Continues to Defend "Brizuela" Class Suit COWEN GROUP: N.Y. Court Okayed "LaBranche" Suit Settlement in Feb. COWEN GROUP: To Pay Portion of CalPERS Suit Settlement DAVEY TREE: Awaits Approval of Settle "Ely" Suit Settlement DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs EASYLINK SERVICES: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Says FELTEX: Demand for Litigation Fund Expects to Increase GREAT SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Missouri HI-TECH PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Weight-Loss Product HOUSTON AMERICAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action HULU: Sued for Disclosing Users' Viewing Habits to Third Parties KENNETH COLE: Faces Class Suits Arising from Founder's Proposal MAKO SURGICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action MEDICAL SOCIETY OF DELAWARE: Reinstated as Defendant in Abuse Suit MEDIMMUNE BIOLOGICS: Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action MERCK: Slater & Gordon Seeks Trading Halt Ahead of Court Ruling NOKIA CORPORATION: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Class Action PATHEON INC: Units Face Suit Over Alleged Defective Product PRUCO LIFE: Appeal From "Phillips" Suit Dismissal Pending QIAO XING: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: IPO-Related Suit Settled in January SCBT FINANCIAL: Faces Merger-related Class Suit SMITHFIELD FOODS: "Engel" Suit Trial Set for October 9 TORO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Canada VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Defective Water Mgmt. System of Audi WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Part of Homeowners' Class Action ********* ANZ BANK: High Court to Hear Class Action Over "Exception Fees" --------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that the High Court will hear a class action by customers of the ANZ Bank alleging it charged excessive fees for overdrafts, overdrawn accounts, dishonor fees and over-the-limit credit card accounts. High Court judges agreed on May 10 to take the case rather than leave it in the Federal Court. Lawyer Paul Gillett, a senior associate with law firm Maurice Blackburn, said this was an important victory for those involved in the class action, allowing it to bypass the Federal Court to go straight to where it ultimately needed to be heard, in the High Court. "This decision will save time, money and resources for the courts and the parties involved, allowing everyone's energies to be better spent," he said in a statement. "These class actions against unfair bank charges are the largest in Australia's history -- more than AUD220 million for fees charged against around 170,000 customers from eight banks and it continues to grow." The case relates to what are termed "exception fees" charged by the ANZ and other major banks for late payments on credit cards and for having insufficient money in business and personal transaction accounts. Maurice Blackburn is arguing that those fees far exceed the cost to the banks. The current action relates only to ANZ but the firm has launched similar actions against other banks and has set up a Web site to encourage others to join the case. APOLLO GLOBAL: Antitrust Law Violations Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ A purported class action brought against Apollo Global Management LLC for alleged violations of U.S. antitrust laws is still pending, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. On July 16, 2008, Apollo was joined as a defendant in a pre- existing purported class action pending in Massachusetts federal court against, among other defendants, numerous private equity firms. The suit alleges that beginning in mid-2003, Apollo and the other private equity firm defendants violated the U.S. antitrust laws by forming "bidding clubs" or "consortia" that, among other things, rigged the bidding for control of various public corporations, restricted the supply of private equity financing, fixed the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and allocated amongst themselves an alleged market for private equity services in leveraged buyouts. The suit seeks class action certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and attorneys' fees. On August 27, 2008, Apollo and its co-defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint and on November 20, 2008, the Court granted Apollo's motion. The Court also dismissed two other defendants, Permira and Merrill Lynch. In an order dated August 18, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to expand the complaint and to obtain additional discovery. The Court ruled that plaintiffs could amend the complaint and obtain discovery in a second discovery phase limited to eight additional transactions. The Court gave the plaintiffs until September 17, 2010 to amend the complaint to include the additional eight transactions. On September 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint by adding the additional eight transactions and adding Apollo as a defendant. On October 6, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to file the fourth amended complaint. Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, filed on October 7, 2010, adds Apollo Global Management, LLC, as a defendant. On November 4, 2010, Apollo moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims against Apollo are time-barred and that the allegations against Apollo are insufficient to state an antitrust conspiracy claim. On February 17, 2011, the Court denied Apollo's motion to dismiss, ruling that Apollo should raise the statute of limitations issues on summary judgment after discovery is completed. Apollo filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on March 21, 2011. On July 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint that adds ten additional transactions and expands the scope of the class seeking relief. On September 7, 2011, the Court denied the motion for leave to amend without prejudice and gave plaintiffs permission to take limited discovery on the ten additional transactions. The Court set April 17, 2012, as the deadline for completing all fact discovery. Currently, Apollo does not believe that a loss from liability in this case is either probable or reasonably estimable. The Court granted Apollo's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' initial complaint in 2008, ruling that Apollo was released from the only transaction in which it allegedly was involved. While plaintiffs have survived Apollo's motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint, the Court stated in denying the motion that it will consider the statute of limitations (one of the bases for Apollo's motion to dismiss) at the summary judgment stage. Based on the applicable statute of limitations, among other reasons, Apollo believes that plaintiffs' claims lack factual and legal merit. For these reasons, no estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Inc. said in its April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, that antitrust class action lawsuits remain pending in California. The related cases, Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.), and Somers v. Apple Inc., have been filed on January 3, 2005, July 21, 2006, and December 31, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and video purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California monopolization law. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys fees. Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights management ("DRM") free versions of any songs downloaded from iTunes or an order requiring the Company to license its DRM to all competing music players. The cases are currently pending. APPLE INC: Disputes iPod Antitrust Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Andy Vuong, writing for Denver Post, reports that if you are among the millions of consumers who purchased an iPod between September 2006 and March 2009, you are likely a party to a class-action lawsuit filed against Apple. The lawsuit claims that the Cupertino, Calif.-based company violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for iPods that prevented the music players from playing songs not purchased on iTunes. It alleges that the software updates caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been, according to an e-mail that's being sent last week to consumers who are believed to have purchased an iPod during the three-year period. Apple denies any wrongdoing and asserts that the software updates improved its products and had no effect on iPod prices. A federal court in the Northern District of California ruled late last year that the case could proceed as a class action. A list of iPod models that are covered by the class definition is available at ipodlawsuit.com. To be removed from the class, you must mail an "exclusion request" by July 30 to Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 8038, Faribault, MN 55021-943. If you haven't received an e-mail notifying that you're a member of the class and you believe you qualify, you can send a letter to the same address above. But even if Apple decides to settle the case, don't expect to receive an award of any significance. A multimillion dollar Ticketmaster class-action settlement reached last year led to $1.50 coupon codes for most of the impacted consumers. As a reader noted in the Ticketmaster blog post, the more significant benefit for consumers from these types of class- action suits is that they may deter companies from engaging in allegedly anti-consumer activity. AVIS BUDGET: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over ETD Convenience Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that drivers who rent E-ZPass-equipped cars from Avis get a surprise "convenience fee" on their bills, justified by vague legalese that the company slips into the fine print, a class claims in court. "While other taxes and fees are disclosed in the rental agreement and other documents, the fees for using the ETD are not disclosed in the rental agreement or during the rental process," according to the lawsuit in New York County Supreme Court, which abbreviates the more general name for electronic toll-collection devices. "Defendant has improperly charged Plaintiff an ETD 'convenience fee,' in New York State, in addition to actual toll charges, without proper disclosure. "Defendant has continued to improperly charge customers without disclosure." Lead plaintiff Jodd Readick says the rental contract tries to sneak proper notice through fine print that states: "If you use a car with automatic toll payment capability, you will pay us or our toll program administrator for all tolls incurred during your rental period and all related fees, charges and penalties." But this language is "deliberately ambiguous," Mr. Readick says. "Even if deemed to have knowledge of this section (after agreeing to so many specific fees in other documents), the language is deliberately ambiguous," according to the complaint (parentheses in original). "A reasonable person could easily conclude that the 'related fees, charges and penalties' are based on the actual costs of the device which could mean the actual tolls and other charges for the proper (or improper) use of the device (e.g. backing up in the toll lane or some other fineable behavior). A reasonable consumer could easily interpret the term 'related fees, charges and penalties' to mean charges relating to the tolls, not charges related to the rental of the ETD (which are nowhere mentioned). Had Defendants' wanted to clearly let people know that there was an additional rental cost to using the ETD, they could have easily done so." Mr. Readick estimates that more than 1,000 drivers could have been misled. The lawsuit seeks class action damages for violation of New York General Business Law, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. A copy of the Complaint in Readick v. Avis Budget Group Inc., et al., Index No. 651517/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/11/Convenient.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Ginsberg, Esq. Ted McCullough, Esq. MCCULLOUGH GINSBERG MONTANO & PARTNERS LLP 320 East 53rd Street, Suite 100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 435-0300 E-mail: tmccullough@mgpllp.com BEST BUY: Geek Squad Workers File Wage & Hour Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- According to Huffington Post's Harry Bradford, Law360 reports that Geek Squad workers have filed a class action lawsuit against parent company Best Buy, alleging they were forced to work off the clock and without rest periods. The case is the second lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Chris Bonnel against Best Buy, after the first failed to show the full extent of Mr. Bonnel's claims against the electronics store chain. Lawsuits accusing employers of not paying their workers properly have exploded in the last few years, as recession layoffs required employers to lean more heavily on fewer workers. In 2011, companies in the S&P 500 made $420,000 in revenue per employee, the Fiscal Times reports, even as worker output grew and real wages fell. During the same year, workers filed 7,006 lawsuits relating to wage and hour violations in federal courts, according to the Fiscal Times. That's a 32 percent increase from 2008 and a 378 percent increase from 2000. Indeed, between 1979 and 2009 worker wages increased by just 10.1 percent compared to an 80% increase in worker productivity, according to a 2011 report by the Economic Policy Institute. Several recent lawsuits have claimed high profile companies aren't giving employees the wages they deserve. Walmart was fined $4.8 million by the Labor Department for not paying some workers their fair share of overtime wages. Drug company Novartis settled for $99 million over unpaid overtime, while lawsuits relating similar claims are pending at Taco Bell and GlaxoSmithkline. But there's also a whole other class of workers that's claiming companies haven't provided adequate compensation: unpaid interns. A league of interns led by Diana Wang, a former intern at Harper's Bazaar, recently filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the Hearst Corporation -- Harper's parent company -- broke labor laws by having her work as many as 55 hours a week without compensation, TIME reports. BOEING CO: Awaits Rulings on Summary Judgment Bids in Ill. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Boeing Company is awaiting court decisions on its motions for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On October 13, 2006, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in The Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan (the VIP), alleged that fees and expenses incurred by the VIP were and are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the VIP and its participants, and were undisclosed to participants. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA. During the first quarter of 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of trial proceedings in the district court pending resolution of an appeal made by Boeing in 2008 to the case's class certification order. On January 21, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's class certification order and decertified the class. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On March 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification and a supplemental motion on August 7, 2011. Boeing's opposition to class certification was filed on September 6, 2011. Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of class certification was filed on September 27, 2011. This issue is fully briefed and awaits district court determination. Boeing's motions for summary judgment based on ERISA's statute of repose and for summary judgment on the merits were both filed on December 21, 2011. Plaintiffs' oppositions to the merits and statute of limitations motions were filed on February 6, 2012. Boeing reply briefs were filed on March 7, 2012. The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the current procedural status of the litigation. BOEING CO: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violation Suits in Kansas -------------------------------------------------------------- The Boeing Company continues to defend two class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The Company has been named as a defendant in two pending class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, each related to the 2005 sale of the Company's former Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit). The first action involves allegations that Spirit's hiring decisions following the sale were tainted by age discrimination, violated ERISA, violated the Company's collective bargaining agreements, and constituted retaliation. The case was brought in 2006 as a class action on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit. During the second quarter of 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims. Following certain procedural motions, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 10, 2011, and are seeking to stay all remaining individual claims in the district court pending resolution of the appeal. Plaintiffs' appellate brief was filed on November 14, 2011. Boeing's appellate brief was filed on January 20, 2012. The second action, initiated in 2007, alleges collective bargaining agreement breaches and ERISA violations in connection with alleged failures to provide benefits to certain former employees of the Wichita facility. Written discovery closed by joint stipulation of the parties on June 6, 2011. Depositions concluded on August 18, 2011. Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment was filed on December 9, 2011. Boeing's opposition and dispositive motions were filed on February 10, 2012. Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the first action, with the exception of claims arising from employment actions prior to January 1, 2005. While Spirit has acknowledged a limited indemnification obligation in the second action, the Company believes that Spirit is obligated to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the second action. BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Order Denying Reconsideration Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed from an order denying their motion for the court's reconsideration of the dismissal of their securities class action lawsuit against The Boeing Company, according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On November 13, 2009, plaintiff shareholders filed a putative securities fraud class action against The Boeing Company and two of its senior executives in federal district court in Chicago. This lawsuit arose from the Company's June 2009 announcement that the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be postponed due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the aircraft. Plaintiffs contended that the Company was aware before June 2009 that the first flight could not take place as scheduled due to issues with the side-of-body section of the aircraft, and that the Company's determination not to announce this delay earlier resulted in an artificial inflation of its stock price for a multi-week period in May and June 2009. On March 7, 2011, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On March 19, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to reconsider that order. On April 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. In addition, plaintiff shareholders have filed three similar shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule for the 787 Dreamliner that closely track the allegations in the putative class action lawsuit. Two of the lawsuits were filed in Illinois state court and have been consolidated. The remaining derivative lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Chicago. No briefing or discovery has yet taken place in any of these lawsuits. Status hearings are set for July 17, 2012, in the federal derivative case and for June 25, 2012, in the consolidated state derivative case. The Company believes the allegations in all of these cases are without merit, and it intends to contest the cases vigorously. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the current procedural status of the litigation. C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Various Product Liability Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. continues to defend itself in numerous product liability lawsuits, according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. As of April 19, 2012, approximately 1,930 federal and 1,460 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,540 plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United States and four putative class actions in various Canadian provinces, have been filed or asserted against the Company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates ten previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages, (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (v) attorneys' fees. Approximately 1,440 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by a substantially equivalent number of plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The Company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL court subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of the Company in the MDL proceeding. The first MDL trial was completed in April 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the Company based on the jury's finding that the Company was not liable for the plaintiff's damages. The second MDL trial was completed in August 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff of $1.5 million. On June 30, 2011, the Company announced that it had reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the Company is engaging in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. Additional trials are scheduled throughout 2012. Based on these events, the Company incurred a charge of $184.3 million ($180.6 million after tax) in the second quarter of 2011, which recognized the estimated costs of settling all Hernia Product Claims, including asserted and unasserted claims, and costs to administer the settlements. The charge excludes any costs associated with pending putative class action lawsuits. The Company cannot give any assurances that the actual costs incurred with respect to the Hernia Product Claims will not exceed the amount of the charge together with amounts previously accrued. The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. As of April 19, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 650 plaintiffs have been filed or asserted against the Company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the Company's surgical continence products for women, principally its Avaulta(R) line of products (collectively, the "Women's Health Product Claims"). The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. With respect to certain of these claims, the Company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. In February 2012, the JPML expanded the scope of and renamed the MDL pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to include lawsuits involving all women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or distributed by the Company. In total, approximately 510 of the Women's Health Product Claims are pending in federal courts and have been or will be transferred to the MDL in West Virginia, with the remainder of the Women's Health Product Claims in other jurisdictions. The Company expects the first trial of a Women's Health Product Claim to take place in the second quarter of 2012. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the Women's Health Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. As of April 19, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 60 plaintiffs have been filed or asserted against the Company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the Company's vena cava filter products. In addition, a putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company in California state court on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter Product Claims"). The putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive damages; (iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (iv) attorneys' fees. The Company expects certain trials of Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months, with the first trial scheduled to take place in the second quarter of 2012. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the Filter Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. In most product liability litigations of this nature, including the Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims and the Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these cases, the Company has not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions, and consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The Company expects that it will receive and review additional information regarding the unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims, the Filter Product Claims and related matters as these cases progress. The Company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers. In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has occurred with respect to certain claims. When this occurs, the Company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of its insurance policies, and accordingly, will record receivables with respect to amounts due under these policies, when recovery is probable. Amounts recovered under the Company's product liability insurance policies may be less than the stated coverage limits and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay claims or that coverage will otherwise be available. In connection with the Hernia Product Claims, the Company is in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating to an aggregate of $25 million of insurance coverage. Regardless of the outcome of this dispute, the Company's insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia Product Claims has been depleted. The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible losses or range of losses, if any, arising from existing product liability matters and other legal matters. Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, an event is "reasonably possible" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely" and an event is "remote" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight." With respect to the Women's Health Product Claims, the Filter Product Claims and the putative class action lawsuits that are part of the Hernia Product Claims, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) the Company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, with respect to the putative class action lawsuits that are part of the Hernia Product Claims and the Filter Product Claims, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class. Founded in 1907 and headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey, C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- and its subsidiaries design, manufacture, package, distribute, and sell medical, surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide. The Company markets its products to hospitals, individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site facilities. CANADA: Injured Soldiers to File Benefits Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Global Edmonton reports that a group of injured Canadian soldiers is launching a class-action lawsuit against the federal government over services and benefits for veterans. The soldiers say Ottawa's treatment of them is shameful, and the New Veterans Charter -- touted as an improvement -- is actually worse than the old one. Maj. Mark Campbell is one of these veterans. He lost both of his legs in June 2008 after an improvised explosive device detonated beneath him during a Taliban ambush in Afghanistan. His left leg was all but vaporized in the blast. His right leg barely hung on by a few strands of shredded bone and tissue. Today, he suffers phantom limb pain where his left leg below the knee used to be -- an excruciating kind of torment so severe, he needs methadone to manage it. He's on maximum allowable doses of other pain medications, and their list of side-effects is long. "But I have no choice," the Edmonton father of two says. "It's that, or I don't want to live." Mr. Campbell also has "severe abdominal scarring, ruptured right eardrum, and traumatic brain injury, which has resulted in short- term memory loss." He says he learned to live with his disability, but not with the way he's been treated by the government. "I can take being legless. That's not too hard to take," he told Global News. "What's really hard to take is seeing my family falling apart, watch my wife and children -- my children failing school, because we're looking at no long-term financial security." Mr. Campbell is one of a growing number of veterans discovering their disability benefits are actually lower under the New Veterans Charter, which was introduced in 2006. "(There is) 40 per cent less financial compensation over the course of my lifetime, easily." The Equitas Society, a support group for veterans headed by Vancouver police officer Jim Scott, says the benefits have proven to be woefully inadequate. "The New Veterans Charter has reduced the benefits to disabled soldiers by one-third for severely disabled soldiers, and to up to 90 per cent for partially disabled soldiers," Mr. Scott says, whose son was badly injured in Afghanistan. "They have no remedy other than the courts, because they have brought this issue to Veterans Affairs Canada and have been basically with presented with spin, denial and refusal that there is a problem." Equitas also says disabled veterans are receiving less than what civilians get under workers' compensation programs. The group has been working for months on the class-action lawsuit, even persuading national law firm Miller Thomson to take the case for free. A suit such as this would normally cost millions of dollars. "I'm outraged that two young men that I actually know, were so badly treated after serving our country so bravely," says lawyer Don Sorochan in Vancouver. He believes the government is not upholding its end of the bargain with veterans who risk life and limb for Canada. "There's a social contract which, put very simply, is to look after (soldiers), to make sure they're looked after. Now, people say what does that mean? And I'm trying to say that there's a constitutional aspect to that social contract." The lawsuit will cite Section 15 of the Charter of Rights, which provides every Canadian with equal protection and benefit of the law, without discrimination. Mr. Campbell says there's no other option than the lawsuit, and is optimistic about the outcome. "We're gonna win this one too, because we're talking about natural justice." But that success could be years away as the case winds its way through the courts. In the meantime, it will take several more weeks for lawyers to compile the lawsuit. To avert another legal war, Equitas says it would prefer Ottawa to replace the New Veterans Charter. CARMAX INC: Appeal From Order Compelling Arbitration Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs' appeal from an order compelling their remaining claims into arbitration on an individual basis remains pending, according to CarMax, Inc.'s April 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended February 29, 2012. On April 2, 2008, John Fowler filed a putative class action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling in favor of CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer a part of the lawsuit. The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues. Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling to the California Court of Appeal. The appeal is pending. The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. The Company says it is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters. CHARLES SCHWAB: Loses Bid to Halt FINRA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal court judge threw out a lawsuit by Charles Schwab Corp. that had sought to stop its regulator from disciplining the brokerage for trying to take away customers' rights to sue it in class actions. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California late on May 11 granted a request by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to dismiss a lawsuit that Schwab filed against the regulator in February. Schwab sued FINRA, Wall Street's industry-funded watchdog, a day after the regulator announced an enforcement case against the San Francisco-based company. FINRA alleged that Schwab added a new provision to more than 6.8 million customer account agreements in October that would preclude them from starting or joining class-action lawsuits against the brokerage. The case raised significant investor protection issues, according to lawyers. Class actions are a common way for small investors to band together in a court case to recover their losses. A win by Schwab would have set the stage for a showdown that could lead other companies to change their arbitration agreements and potentially weaken FINRA's hold over its own enforcement process, lawyers said. Schwab also required customers to agree that industry arbitrators would not have the authority to consolidate claims from multiple parties. Such consolidated cases are common, but typically include far fewer claimants than those in class actions. Both types of cases often involve investors with smaller claims, typically under $10,000, according to lawyers. "It's a good decision for all investors and customers of Charles Schwab," said Ryan K. Bakhtiari, president of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, a Norman, Oklahoma-based group of securities arbitration lawyers. "The rules are clear and unequivocal that Schwab did not have the right to prohibit class actions, he said. Judge Laporte, in a 21-page opinion, agreed with FINRA that Schwab is required to follow its procedures for disciplinary cases. That process ultimately includes a review by a federal court judge. FINRA, in addition to being Wall Street's regulator, runs the arbitration forum where customers and brokerage firms typically must resolve legal disputes. FINRA arbitration rules do not allow arbitrators to hear class action cases. FINRA rules also restrict brokerages from limiting investors' rights to file court cases in certain situations. Schwab's agreement would effectively leave investors in a bind, in which many would not have access to a legal process for recovering their losses, lawyers said. Schwab had argued, among other things, that it would be "irreparably harmed" by using FINRA's process, which the company said could take up to four or more years. But delay is not an adequate reason for avoiding FINRA's process, the court wrote. Schwab did not show it was "entitled to an exception" from FINRA's process, according to the opinion. The court's dismissal of Schwab's lawsuit against FINRA, however, leaves some questions unresolved while FINRA continues its disciplinary case against the brokerage, said William Jacobson, a professor at Cornell Law School's Securities Law Clinic in Ithaca, New York. Schwab must now decide whether to continue using a provision in its customer agreement during those proceedings "that amounts to, in effect, a continued, knowing violation," he said. It is also unclear what would happen if Schwab tried to enforce the class action waiver agreement in a case against a customer, Mr. Jacobson said. A spokesperson for Schwab was not immediately available for comment. A FINRA spokeswoman declined to comment. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Pomerantz Provides Update on Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz Law Firm provided an update on the class action filed against Chesapeake Energy Corporation. On April 26, 2012, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a securities class action (5:12-cv-00465-W) the federal District Court in Oklahoma City on behalf of all persons who purchased Chesapeake Energy Corporation common stock between April 30, 2009 and April 17, 2012. The case was filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and (then) Chairman, Aubrey K. McClendon . The original claims focused on McClendon's undisclosed $1 billion plus leveraging of his interests in Chesapeake's Founders Well Program. While the program was intended to align McClendon's interests with shareholders, McClendon's leveraging, particularly through entities financing the Company's enormous debt load, placed him in conflict with those shareholders. The degree of Chesapeake's undisclosed risks was further evidenced today by Russell Gold's Wall Street Journal article exposing the Company's off balance sheet liabilities for over $1.2 billion in costs associated with wells whose production rights have been sold as part of the Volumetric Production Payment program. In essence, Chesapeake has sold off its rights for future revenues from certain wells in return for monies to pay off its outsized debt, leaving the Company still liable to pay for the significant operating costs of these wells. News of these additional liabilities drove the price of Chesapeake stock down to $14.81 at the close of trading today, down 22.5% from the close on April 17 prior to all these revelations. If you are a shareholder who purchased Chesapeake common stock during the Class Period, you have until June 25, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. The firm represents victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. It has offices in New York and Chicago. COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Faces Acquisition-Related Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory M. Dusablon, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Collective Brands, Inc., Daniel Boggan Jr., Mylle H. Mangum, Richard L. Markee, John F. McGovern, Robert F. Moran, D. Scott Olivet, Matthew A. Ouimet, Michael A. Weiss, Robert C. Wheeler, Michael J. Massey, Blum Strategic Partners IV, L.P., Golden Gate Capital Opportunity Fund, L.P., Wolverine World Wide, Inc., WBG -- PSS Holdings LLC and WBG -- PSS Merger Sub Inc., Case No. 7498- (Del. Chancery Ct., May 4, 2012) is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Collective Brands to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on May 1, 2012, pursuant to which Collective Brands will be acquired by affiliates of Blum, Golden Gate and Wolverine in an all-cash transaction for $21.75 per share. The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process that resulted from the Board's failure to maximize shareholder value and deprives Collective Brands' public shareholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects, Mr. Dusablon alleges. He adds that in approving the Merger Agreement, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the Class. Mr. Dusablon is a shareholder of Collective Brands. Collective Brands is a Delaware corporation based in Topeka, Kansas. The Company is a leader in bringing compelling lifestyle, fashion and performance brands for footwear and related accessories to consumers worldwide. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Blum is a Delaware limited partnership and a San Francisco-based public strategic block and private investment firm. Golden Gate is a San Francisco-based private investment firm. Wolverine is a Delaware corporation and purports to be one of the world's leading marketers of branded casual, active lifestyle, work, outdoor sport and uniform footwear and apparel. WBG - PSS Holdings is a Delaware limited liability company owned by Blum, Golden Gate, and Wolverine, which was created for the sole purpose of effecting the Proposed Transaction. Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly- owned subsidiary of WBG - PSS Holdings, which was created for the sole purpose of effecting the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com bdl@rigrodskylong.com gs@rigrodskylong.com COOPER COMPANIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit brought against The Cooper Companies, Inc., alleging securities law violations is pending in California, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2012. On November 28, 2011, Harold Greenberg filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:11-cv-05697-YGR, against the following defendants: the Company; Robert S. Weiss, its President, Chief Executive Officer and a director; Eugene J. Midlock, its former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Albert G. White, III, its Vice President of Investor Relations, Treasurer and Chief Strategic Officer. On December 12, 2011, a second individual, Ross Wallen, filed a related complaint against the same defendants in the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:11-cv-06214-YGR. The Wallen complaint largely repeats the allegations in the Greenberg complaint. Greenberg and Wallen each sought to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 4, 2011 and November 15, 2011. The Greenberg and Wallen complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, failing to disclose alleged problems at the Company's manufacturing plants in Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom, allegedly making material misstatements with an intent to deceive investors concerning the recall of the Company's Avaira(R) Toric and Avaira Sphere contact lenses and the expected financial impact of the recalls, and allegedly making false projections of future financial results. Both complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of the purported class. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 sets out a procedure for the court to consolidate related securities class actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On February 29, 2012, the court ordered that the Greenberg and Wallen actions be consolidated and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiff. The lawsuits have only recently been filed and there has been no discovery or other proceedings. Accordingly, the Company is not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on the Company's financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any. COPART INC: Continues to Defend "Ortiz-Torres" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Copart, Inc., continues to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit filed by Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012. On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed suit against the Company in Superior Court of San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class action on behalf of persons employed by the Company in the positions of facilities managers and assistant general managers in California at any time since the date four years prior to September 21, 2010. The complaint alleges failure to pay wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, in violation of various California Labor and Business and Professional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification of facilities managers and assistant general managers as exempt employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive relief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs, interest, and punitive damages. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit. COPART INC: Continues to Defend "Brizuela" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Copart, Inc., continues to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit filed by Jose E. Brizuela, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012. On February 12, 2011, Jose E. Brizuela filed suit against the Company in Superior Court, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District, which purports to be class action on behalf of persons employed by the Company paid on a hourly basis in California at any time since the date four years prior to February 14, 2011. The complaint alleges failure to pay all earned wages due to an alleged practice of rounding of hours worked to the detriment of the employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive relief, unpaid wages, waiting time penalty-wages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs of suit. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit. COWEN GROUP: N.Y. Court Okayed "LaBranche" Suit Settlement in Feb. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The New York Supreme Court approved in February the settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Cowen Group, Inc. over its acquisition of LaBranche & Co., according to the Company's March 9, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. The acquisition of LaBranche by the Company was consummated pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of February 16, 2011, after the market close on June 28, 2011. LaBranche Capital, LLC, which was renamed "Cowen Capital LLC" following consummation of the acquisition, was a wholly owned subsidiary of LaBranche and is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding share of LaBranche was converted into 0.9980 shares of Cowen Class A common stock. On February 22, 2011, a putative class action, captioned Moskal v. LaBranche & Co., et. al., was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, naming as defendants the Company, LaBranche & Co. and members of the board of directors of LaBranche & Co., and Louisiana Merger Sub, Inc. On February 26, 2011, a separate lawsuit was filed, captioned Borowka v. LaBranche & Co., et al., in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York naming as defendants the same parties. The lawsuits challenged LaBranche's decision to sell all of its outstanding shares of common stock to the Company for $192.8 million. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the Company aided and abetted the LaBranche defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to maximize the sale price for LaBranche. On May 2, 2011, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated lawsuit. On October 25, 2011, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, which was filed with the Supreme Court on October 26, 2011. A hearing was held on February 1, 2012, at which the Supreme Court approved the settlement, which resolved all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the actions being settled, including all claims relating to the acquisition, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith. COWEN GROUP: To Pay Portion of CalPERS Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ Cowen Group, Inc. will pay a portion of the settlement amount in the deal resolving a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by the California Public Employees' Retirement System and other defendants in New York, according to Cowen's March 9, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. On or about October 16, 2003 through December 16, 2003, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York by persons or entities who purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE listed companies, including Pirelli v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8264, Marcus v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521, Empire v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935, and California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 9968. On March 11, 2004, a fifth action asserting similar claims, Rosenbaum Partners, LP v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 04 CV 2038, was also filed in the SDNY by an individual plaintiff who does not allege to represent a class. On May 27, 2004, the SDNY consolidated these lawsuits under the caption In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, No. CV 8264. The court named the following lead plaintiffs: CalPERS and Empire Programs, Inc. On December 5, 2011, CalPERS and defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the action. The portion of the settlement amount allocated to LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche & Co. LLC and Mr. LaBranche pursuant to a confidential allocation agreement entered into by the defendants will be paid by the Company with amounts to be received from one of the Company's insurers. It does not believe that this matter will have a material effect on the Company's operating results for the year ended December 31, 2011. The MOU contemplates the negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement, and the settlement is subject to notice to the class and approval by the Court. DAVEY TREE: Awaits Approval of Settle "Ely" Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- The Davey Tree Expert Company is awaiting court approval of a settlement resolving a class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary in California, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert Company, was named as a defendant in Peter Ely et al. v. Davey Tree Surgery Company, et al., a purported class-action lawsuit in the State of California filed on July 15, 2008 in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda. The plaintiffs alleged on behalf of themselves and a putative class that Davey Tree Surgery Company failed to comply with California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required content of paycheck stubs. The plaintiffs alleged that they and the putative "meal periods" class were not provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-minute meal periods. In addition, plaintiffs claimed that because they were allegedly required to work during their meal breaks, Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law because they and the putative class members were not paid minimum wage for their alleged work during meal breaks. Plaintiffs also contended that Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law by not including the time that they and the putative "wage statement" class members worked during their meal periods, their hourly rates of pay and the number of hours worked at each hourly rate on their paycheck stubs. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements" class; some individuals were members of both classes, while others were members of only one class. A trial was initially scheduled for January 30, 2012. The trial was rescheduled to March 26, 2012, pending results of a mediation process initiated in January 2012 with plaintiffs and Local Union 1245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. As a result of the mediation, on January 6, 2012, Davey Tree Surgery Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims with the plaintiffs, counsel for the class members, and the Union representing the class members. The Settlement Agreement requires court approval of its terms, a process that could take several months to complete. In the event that the Court denies final approval of the Settlement Agreement with prejudice and both Davey Tree Surgery Company and the plaintiffs have exhausted all means to challenge that denial, the Settlement Agreement will be void in all respects and the litigation will continue. The Settlement Agreement provides for Davey Tree Surgery to pay a total sum of $2,900 that was recorded in the fourth quarter 2011. DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs ------------------------------------------------ Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that regulators moved on May 10 to seize control of pension plans at Dewey & LeBoeuf, the latest sign of likely collapse at what was once a top U.S. law firm. Dewey also faced its first lawsuit over plans to fire hundreds of employees. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation said it would take responsibility for three pension plans covering 1,800 current and future retirees. The plans were underfunded by $80 million, it said. Angelo Kakolyris, a spokesman for Dewey, declined to comment. Dewey has been struggling for weeks with partner defections and debt. It has warned employees that it could close its doors and it has said that New York prosecutors are probing allegations of wrongdoing by its former chairman, Steven Davis. Mr. Davis has denied wrongdoing. In its statement, the pensions regulator said it was stepping in to secure its ability "to collect against the firm's affiliates that share funding responsibility for the pension plans." The announcement came the same day an employee sued Dewey for failing to provide adequate notice of layoffs. The firm is firing about 450 people in its New York office effective May 11, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by Vittoria Conn, a worker in Dewey's document production department, who said the company owes her 60 days of pay because it failed to give adequate notice. The lawsuit sought class-action status for others laid off by the company. Dewey "terminated approximately 450 employees at its (New York office) on or about May 7, 2012, effective on or about May 11," the lawsuit said. The action was brought in federal court in New York under federal and state laws that require employers to give 60 to 90 days' notice before mass layoffs. Ms. Conn said she was notified Monday that her last day would be Friday. While it was not known how many people Dewey employs in New York, the 450 layoffs would likely be a big chunk of its workforce in the city, and provided an indication of how fast the firm was unraveling. Spokespeople for the firm have declined to say how many employees will lose their jobs. In 2011, Dewey employed 1,040 lawyers worldwide, according to an annual survey by the National Law Journal, a legal publication. More than 180 of its roughly 300 partners have announced they have left or will leave since the firm's troubles began. On May 9, two of the firm's top leaders, Jeffrey Kessler and Richard Shutran, said they would leave Dewey & LeBoeuf for other firms. But it is employees and junior lawyers who face the toughest times in a job market still recovering from the recent U.S. recession, experts said. EASYLINK SERVICES: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Yechiel E. Gross, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Easylink Services International Corp., Epic Acquisition Sub Inc., Kim D. Cooke, Richard J. Berman, Paul D. Lapides, John S. Simon and Thomas J. Stallings, Case No. 7505- (Del. Chancery Ct., May 8, 2012) arises from the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of EasyLink common stock by Open Text Corp., pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 1, 2012. Under the terms of the Proposed Transaction and Merger Agreement, Open Text will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of EasyLink for $7.25 per share, which price represents a mere 14% premium over EasyLink's shares on its closing price of $6.36 prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, Mr. Gross contends. He also alleges that the Individual Defendants did not take all steps necessary to obtain a full, fair and adequate price for EasyLink's shares and have failed to maximize shareholder value. Mr. Gross is an EasyLink shareholder. EasyLink, a Delaware corporation is based in Norcross, Georgia. EasyLink is a global provider of on-demand and electronic messaging and transaction services that help companies optimize relationships with their partners, suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders. Epic is a wholly owned subsidiary of Open Text, and is incorporated in Delaware. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of EasyLink. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY ERNST BIELLI & WALLEN, LLC The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-4905 Facsimile: (302) 295-2873 E-mail: rernst@oebwlegal.com - and - Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. James E. Tullman, Esq. Mark D. Smilow, Esq. WEISS & LURIE 1500 Broadway, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com jtullman@weisslurie.com msmilow@weisslurie.com FELTEX: Demand for Litigation Fund Expects to Increase ------------------------------------------------------ Tamlyn Stewart, writing for Fairfax NZ News, reports that the British litigation funding group backing a class action by former Feltex shareholders against directors, sellers and promoters of the failed carpetmaker says it expects an increase in demand for such funding as lawyers become more comfortable with the idea. Former shareholders are claiming the prospectus accompanying the Feltex share offer of just more than NZ$250 million in shares in 2004 was misleading and contained untrue statements. Feltex collapsed in late 2006 and shareholders lost their entire investment. Counsel for the former Feltex shareholders secured funding for their legal action last year through the British-based Harbour Litigation Funding. That had helped address plaintiffs' concerns about the risk of being held personally liable for any costs arising from the action, and as a result more former shareholders had joined the class action. In February, the number of claimants in the Feltex class action had swelled to 2,800 former shareholders. Collectively the group is claiming losses and interest since 2004 in respect of 60 million shares purchased at an issue price of NZ$1.70 when Feltex listed. An earlier estimate of the amount claimed was in the region of NZ$145 million, including interests and costs. While Harbour's main focus is British-based legal actions, it is already funding actions in the United States, Channel Islands, the Caribbean and New Zealand. Harbour reviews 25 new cases every month and last year invested NZ$82 million in litigation claims worth more than NZ$2 billion. It recently secured NZ$247 million of additional capital in a new fund which will invest in commercial legal actions and arbitrations. GREAT SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- Great Southern Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit pending in a Missouri court, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On November 22, 2010, a suit was filed against the Bank in Missouri state court in Springfield by a customer alleging that the fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in connection with its debit card and ATM cards constitute unlawful interest in violation of Missouri's usury laws. The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft fees on their checking accounts. The Court denied a motion to dismiss filed by the Bank and litigation is ongoing. At this early stage of the litigation, it is not possible for management of the Bank to determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss. HI-TECH PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Weight-Loss Product ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals markets a weight-loss product called Fastin that contains a dangerous and illegal synthetic form of dimethylamylamine (DMAA), a federal class claims. A copy of the Complaint in Kaczor v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-04089 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/11/fastin.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Louis Kelly, Esq. Behram V. Parekh, Esq. Heather M. Peterson, Esq. KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP 2041 Rosecrans Avenue Third Floor El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com bvp@kirtlandpackard.com hmp@kirtlandpackard.com HOUSTON AMERICAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Houston American Energy Corp. between March 29, 2010 and April 18, 2012. To join the Houston American class action, visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Laurence Rosen, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com or lrosen@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against Houston American for failing to adequately disclose problems with its Tamandua #1 well, and the well's C7 and C9 formations. Namely, that the Company failed to disclose that: (i) the continued investment in testing and completing the C7 and C9 formations in Tamandua #1 well was unproductive and not commercially viable; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 26, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767- 3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. HULU: Sued for Disclosing Users' Viewing Habits to Third Parties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of Hulu subscribers who claim the Web site discloses what they watch to third parties without their consent argued that their action should continue in San Jose's federal court. In their amended class action complaint, six Hulu subscribers said the video site "repurposed" its browser cache so a marketing analyst service called KISSmetrics could store their private data. The class also claims Hulu shared their private viewing choices with Facebook, Google Analytics, and other online market research and ad companies. "Hulu's online privacy policy is misleading in that it does not disclose its use of aggressive, rogue exploits of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' computer software to engage in widespread tracking and information sharing," the amended complaint says. Hulu's actions "are so outside the boundaries of reasonable expectations that even industry experts had not previously observed these exploits 'in the wild,' that is, in actual use on Web sites available to the public," the complaint says. The class claims they suffered losses from the illegal data exploitation because their personal information has economic value as an asset exchanged for Hulu's video services. Hulu moved to dismiss the action, which the class fought in a filing on May 11. Attorney Scott Kamber argued the plaintiffs have properly alleged an injury by claiming their rights under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) were violated. The plaintiffs were also "consumers" under the meaning of the statute even though they do not pay for Hulu services, because the dictionary definition of "subscriber" includes someone who signs up using personal information, Mr. Kamber argued. "The issue in the VPPA is not the form or method of video delivery. Rather, the statute concerns the protection of records about the subscriber and what the subscriber viewed," the attorney wrote. "Given its purpose, there is no basis to argue that the online transfer of video content falls outside the purview of the Act," he continued. In asking the court to deny Hulu's motion to dismiss, Mr. Kamber requested an opportunity to replead if the court grants the motion. A copy of the Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in In Re: Hulu Privacy Litigation, Case No. 11- cv-03764 (N.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/4peMBw The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. Kamber, Esq. David A. Stampley, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com dstampley@kamberlaw.com - and - Deborah Kravitz, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 141 North St. Healdsburg, CA 95448 Telephone: (707) 820-4247 E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com - and - David C. Parisi, Esq. Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq. Azita Moradmand, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 15233 Valleyheart Drive Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com shavens@parisihavens.com amoradmand@parisihavens.com - and - Brian R. Strange, Esq. STRANGE & CARPENTER 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-5055 E-mail: LACounsel@earthlink.net KENNETH COLE: Faces Class Suits Arising from Founder's Proposal --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., is facing four putative class action lawsuits arising from Kenneth D. Cole's proposal to acquire all of the Company's outstanding Class A Common Stock that he does not currently own, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On February 23, 2012, the Board of Directors received a non- binding proposal from Mr. Cole to acquire all of the Company's outstanding Class A Common Stock that he does not currently directly or indirectly own for $15.00 per share in cash. In his letter outlining his proposal, Mr. Cole indicated that he was unwilling to consider any transaction other than one in which he would be the acquirer. The Board of Directors has established a Special Committee of independent Directors (the "Special Committee"), comprised of all of the Directors of the Company other than Mr. Cole and Mr. Blum, to consider the proposal, to negotiate on behalf of the Company and, if it deems appropriate, to solicit and consider any alternative transactions. Since the announcement of Mr. Cole's non-binding proposal, Company shareholders have filed four separate putative class actions in New York State court against the Company, Mr. Cole, and the board of directors alleging that Mr. Cole and the board members breached their fiduciary duties to Company shareholders, and that the Company aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties. MAKO SURGICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports that a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against Mako Surgical Corp. with accusations that the company and its top executives committed securities fraud by not disclosing that its first quarter sales would fall below the company's expectations. The Davie-based manufacturer of a hip and knee replacement surgical robot reported on May 7 that its revenue increased 51 percent, year-over-year, in the first quarter. Yet, it sold only six of its RIO surgical systems in the first quarter -- with the revenue from one deferred until it receives regulatory approval in Japan -- down from 18 RIO sales in the fourth quarter. The company lowered its expectations for RIO sales this year. The day trading opened following the earnings announcement Mako Surgical shares took a 37 percent dive. Several investment analysts downgraded its stock. On May 10, James H. Harrison Jr., proposing to represent a class of the company's shareholders, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Mako Surgical, along with President and CEO Dr. Maurice Ferre and CFO Fritz Laporte. The plaintiff is represented by Boca Raton-based law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which issued a news release seeking more clients to join this action. The proposed class period is from Jan. 9 until May 7 -- the date of its first quarter earnings release. It is not unusual for a company to get hit with a shareholder class action lawsuit following a major drop in its shares. The issue is whether the company and its executives misled investors about material facts, and did so intentionally. The lawsuit charges Mako Surgical and its executives with failing to disclose that its first quarter loss would be wider because of higher expenses and lower sales, the utilization rates of its RIO systems by surgeons were dropping and its 2012 outlook lacked a reasonable basis. "We firmly believe the purported law suit is entirely without merit," Mako Surgical stated in an e-mail from its investor relations department. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this action, when and if we are served." MEDICAL SOCIETY OF DELAWARE: Reinstated as Defendant in Abuse Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean O'Sullivan, writing for The News Journal, reports that the Medical Society of Delaware and two prominent doctors have been reinstated as defendants in a class-action civil suit seeking to hold a range of people and institutions responsible for failing to protect children in the care of former Lewes pediatrician Earl B. Bradley. Mr. Bradley, who took videos of himself molesting young patients at his Lewes office over a number of years, was convicted last year of 24 criminal counts, including first-degree rape. He was sentenced to life in prison. The 75-page opinion by Superior Court Judge Joseph R. Slights III, made public on May 10, at least partially reverses a ruling that Judge Slights made in January 2011 that dismissed the Medical Society of Delaware along with Drs. James P. Marvel Jr. and Carol A. Tavani as defendants. In 2011, Judge Slights ruled that attorneys representing the plaintiffs -- which could number in the hundreds -- had not sufficiently shown that the society or the doctors had any duty of care to Mr. Bradley's patients. But Judge Slights at that time gave attorneys for the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint to make a stronger case, and plaintiffs did just that. In last week's opinion, according to defense attorney Collins J. Seitz Jr., Judge Slights again dismissed nearly all of the plaintiffs' claims against the Medical Society and the two doctors. But Judge Slights also found that the plaintiffs had made one new claim that, if true, could establish that the society and the doctors had a duty to protect Mr. Bradley's patients. This stems from allegations by the plaintiffs that Mr. Bradley's sister reported her brother to the Medical Society in 2004 and that Drs. Tavani and Marvel allegedly responded that the society "took her concerns seriously" and would report the situation to state regulators, but then failed to do so. Mr. Seitz and the Medical Society, however, note that Judge Slights had to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true at this point. But the judge will review the allegations again later during the pre-trial process, when more concrete evidence is in the record, and Judge Slights wrote that the Medical Society's arguments "may well prove fatal" to the plaintiffs' remaining claim. MEDIMMUNE BIOLOGICS: Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ On May 9, 2012, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against drug company Medimmune Biologics, Inc. on behalf of drug sales representatives for alleged overtime wage and hour violations. The overtime complaint against the drug company was filed in San Diego County Superior Court and is entitled Rainey v. Medimmune Biologics, Inc., Case No. 37-2012-00096972-CU-OE-CTL. According to the wage and hour class action complaint filed against the drug company, Medimmune Biologics violated California overtime laws by failing to pay drug sales representatives for overtime hours worked. Under California law, companies are required to pay all non-exempt employees overtime compensation whenever the employees work more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week. The primary requirement to satisfy the outside salesperson exemption and thus not pay overtime under California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act is that the sales representatives are actually making sales. In the Medimmune Biologics overtime class action lawsuit, the drug sales representatives allege that they were not actually involved in making sales but rather promoting prescription drugs to physicians, doctors and other specialists. At most, the physicians the sales representatives promote the drugs to can agree to prescribe the medicine to patients as needed, but cannot actually buy the prescription medicine from the sales representatives directly. When asked about the filing of the Complaint, managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal, stated, "Medimmune Biologics and other drug companies involved in this illegal practice of failing to pay their 'sales' representatives overtime wages needs to be stopped now." The drug sales representative overtime class action suit is one of many that has been recently filed against pharmaceutical and other drug companies. The California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are also representing drug sales representatives in overtime class action suits against Novo Nordisk (Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc., Case No. 34-2011-00103639 in the Eastern District of California); Merck (Frudakis v. Merck, Case No. SACV11-00146 in the Central District of California); and Schering-Plough (Valadez v. Schering-Plough, Case No. 10-CV-2595 in the Southern District of California). The class action lawsuits all allege that the pharmaceutical sales representatives should be paid overtime compensation for working more than eight hour days under the California Labor Code and/or forty hour weeks under the Fair Labor Standards Act based on the contention that the drug sales representatives do not qualify for the outside salesperson exemption because they are not actually making sales. For more information about the Medimmune Biologics class action lawsuit, call (866) 771-7099. Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back against unlawful employer practices. MERCK: Slater & Gordon Seeks Trading Halt Ahead of Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that listed law firm Slater & Gordon has requested a trading halt, pending a High Court decision relating to a class action against a major pharmaceutical company that it has been running. The court's decision was expected on May 11, and Slater & Gordon has requested that the Australian Securities Exchange halt trading in its shares from May 11. The High Court was expected to hand down its decision on the application for special leave to appeal the court's decision in the Vioxx painkiller class action. Vioxx has been linked to an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes, and Slater & Gordon's class action involves the Australian subsidiary of global pharmaceutical company Merck. The action is on a no-win, no-fee basis, meaning if the proceedings are unsuccessful, Slater & Gordon is not entitled to recover costs for the work performed or the out-of-pocket expenses incurred on behalf of its clients. NOKIA CORPORATION: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Shuman Law Firm has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Nokia Corporation publicly traded securities during the period between October 26, 2011 and April 10, 2012. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll-free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com The Complaint alleges that Nokia, a provider of telecommunications infrastructure hardware, software, and services, and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, it is alleged that during the Class Period, defendants told investors that Nokia's conversion to a Windows platform would halt its deteriorating position in the smartphone market. It did not. This became apparent on April 11, 2012, when Nokia disclosed that its first quarter performance would be worse than expected. Nokia expected its first quarter 2012 non-IFRS Devices & Services operating margin to fall by 3%, and projected first quarter 2012 Devices & Services net sales of EUR4.2 billion. It also disclosed a glitch in its newest Windows offering -- the Lumia 900. Nokia had to immediately offer customers an automatic $100, making the phone essentially free. As a result of this disclosure, the price of Nokia's American Depositary Shares ("ADRs") dropped over 16% in a single day. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Nokia publicly traded securities during the Class Period. If you are a member of the Class, you may move the court no later than July 2, 2012, and request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members. The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative actions. PATHEON INC: Units Face Suit Over Alleged Defective Product ----------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action lawsuit filed against Patheon Inc.'s subsidiaries in connection with the recall of an allegedly defective product is still pending, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2012. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, a customer gave notice of its intent to seek indemnification against the Company pursuant to a manufacturing service agreement for all costs associated with a recall of an allegedly defective product. The Company accrued $1.7 million, net of expected insurance proceeds, to cover recall costs and replace the returned products. During the first quarter of fiscal 2012, the customer gave further notice of its intent to seek indemnification pursuant to the MSA for all actual and potential third-party claims that have been or may be filed against it in connection with the recall and the alleged product defects, as well as all costs and expenses of the defense and settlement of such claims. To date, three putative class actions and one single plaintiff action have been commenced in the United States against the customer in connection with the allegedly defective products, and two of the Company's subsidiaries have also been named in one of the putative class actions. As these cases are at an early stage, the Company is unable to estimate the number of potential claimants or the amount of potential damages for which the Company may be directly or indirectly liable in the actions. However, the Company does not believe that its subsidiaries are relevant parties to the putative class action in which those subsidiaries are currently named and intends to vigorously contest their inclusion in this action. PRUCO LIFE: Appeal From "Phillips" Suit Dismissal Pending --------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company is pending, according to Pruco Life Insurance Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint, Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois. The complaint makes claims of breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty, and violation of Illinois law on behalf of a class of Illinois residents whose death benefits were settled by retained assets accounts and seeks damages and disgorgement of profits. In January 2011, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop Prudential Financial as a defendant and add the Company as a defendant. The matter is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company. In April 2011, a motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed. In November 2011, the complaint was dismissed and the dismissal appealed in December 2011. QIAO XING: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal securities class action (12 Civ 3745) in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased Qiao Xing Universal Resources, Inc. securities between August 23, 2010 and April 13, 2012, inclusive. This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Qiao Xing securities during the Class Period, you have until June 26, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. Qiao Xing, through its subsidiary, mines and processes rare metal and various base-metal ores, including molybdenum, copper, lead and zinc. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Chairman was improperly transferring funds from at least one subsidiary's bank account to an account controlled by him; (2) the Company conducted transactions that improperly pledged or transferred assets from its bank accounts; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 16, 2012, NASDAQ halted trading of Qiao Xing securities for failing to sufficiently satisfy "NASDAQ's request for additional information." On April 20, 2012, the Company disclosed that its Audit Committee commenced "an internal investigation into a transfer of funds from a Company subsidiary's bank account to an account controlled by the Company's former Chairman," Defendant Rui Lin Wu. In addition, the Audit Committee is also reviewing "certain transactions involving the pledge or transfer of Company assets and to confirm cash balances of the Company's bank accounts." The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. The firm represents victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The firm has offices in New York and Chicago. QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: IPO-Related Suit Settled in January ----------------------------------------------------------- A settlement of a putative securities class action lawsuit arising from QuickLogic Corporation's initial public offering was finally settled in January, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 1, 2012. On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic's initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of QuickLogic's officers and directors. The complaint alleged excessive and undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and secondary public offerings and artificially high prices through "tie-in" arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's stock pursuant to the registration statements between October 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000. Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually identical allegations against over 300 other public companies, their underwriters, and their officers and directors arising out of each company's public offering. These actions, including the action against QuickLogic, were coordinated for pretrial purposes and captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. The parties reached a global settlement of the litigation. Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, the Company will not bear any financial liability and the Company and the other defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case. The settlement was approved by the Court on October 5, 2009 and certain objectors filed appeals. The last remaining appeal of the settlement was withdrawn on January 13, 2012 and the settlement may now be enforced. The Company did not accrue any amounts related to the proposed settlement because it was not reasonably estimable. SCBT FINANCIAL: Faces Merger-related Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- SCBT Financial Corporation is facing a purported class action lawsuit arising from its agreement and plan of merger with Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On January 18, 2012, two purported shareholders of Peoples filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Thirteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of Pickens, captioned F. Davis Arnette and Mary F. Arnette v. Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., Case No. 2012-CP-39-0064. The Complaint names as defendants Peoples, the current members of Peoples' board of directors, and SCBT. The Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of Peoples common stock and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action. The Complaint alleges that Peoples' directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in connection with the pending merger between SCBT and Peoples, and also alleges that SCBT aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the completion of the merger, an accounting to determine damages sustained by the putative class, and costs including plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees. SCBT believes that the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit and that the proceeding will not have any material adverse effect on the financial condition or operations of SCBT. SMITHFIELD FOODS: "Engel" Suit Trial Set for October 9 ------------------------------------------------------ Trial in the case captioned Engel, et al. v. PSF, et al., which involves the claims of four plaintiffs, and is pending in Harrison County, has been scheduled to commence on October 9, 2012, according to Smithfield Foods, Inc.'s March 9, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 29, 2012. In May 2004, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Daniel Herrold, et al. and Others Similarly Situated v. ContiGroup Companies, Inc., Premium Standard Farms, and PSF Group Holdings, Inc. was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. As a result of various venue transfer rulings and notices of dismissal, Herrold cases are pending in Chariton, Clark, DeKalb, Harrison, Jackson, and Linn counties. Trial for one of the Herrold cases pending in Harrison County, Engel, et al. v. PSF, et al., which involves the claims of four plaintiffs, has been scheduled to commence on October 9, 2012, and discovery is ongoing. TORO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------ The Toro Company continues to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit pending in Canada, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February 3, 2012. In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers in Canada filed class action litigation against the company and other defendants that (i) contains allegations under applicable Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made by the plaintiffs in a settled class action in the United States, (ii) seeks certification of a class of all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994 purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the company and other defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs and fees, and equitable relief. Management continues to evaluate this Canadian litigation. In the event the company is unable to favorably resolve this litigation, management is unable to assess at this time whether this litigation would have a material adverse effect on the company's annual consolidated operating results or financial condition, although an unfavorable resolution or outcome could be material to the company's consolidated operating results for a particular period. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Defective Water Mgmt. System of Audi ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rita Shabani, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-12-518774 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 2, 2012) is brought on behalf of a class of persons, who purchased or leased model year 2007 Audi Q7 Quattro vehicles or model year 2004-2006 Volkswagen Phaeton vehicles. Beginning in 2004, if not before, the Defendants knew or should have known that the Class Vehicles contain one or more distinct and serious latent design and manufacturing defects that causes them to be highly prone to water leaks and flooding, including defects in the water management system, Ms. Shabani alleges. She contends that the Class Vehicles' water management system is defective because it becomes clogged with leaves, twigs, debris, and other objects that enter the water management system, resulting to electrical failure due to water damaging the computer, electrical system, and other interior components. Ms. Shabani is a resident of Los Angeles County, California. She purchased a New 2007 Audi Q7 Quattro from an Audi dealer in California. Volkswagen Group is a New Jersey corporation, while Volkswagen AG is a foreign corporation headquartered in Wolfsburg, Germany. Audi AG is a foreign corporation based in Ingolstadt, Germany. The Defendants design, manufacture, construct, assemble, market, distribute, and sell automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in California and throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of Doe Defendants. Volkswagen Group removed the lawsuit on May 10, 2012, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company argues that the removal is proper because "matter in controversy" in this case as to the claims of all individual class members exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest or costs. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-02365 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Neda Roshanian, Esq. Michael Coats, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-Mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com neda@yablonovichlaw.com michael@yablonovichlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Craig L. Winterman, Esq. Gary S. Yates, Esq. L. Dean Smith, Jr., Esq. HERZFELD & RUBIN LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0451 Facsimile: (310) 553-0648 E-mail: cwinterman@hrllp-law.com gyates@hrllp-law.com dsmith@hrllp-law.com WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Part of Homeowners' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge dismissed part of a class action accusing Wells Fargo of offering temporary loan modifications without the intention of ever making the modifications permanent. U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero found the class failed to state a claim for breach of contract or debt collection violations while allowing unfair competition claims to remain. Judge Spero also gave the class leave to amend the complaint to allege damages from the bank's alleged contract breach. Lead plaintiffs Vicki and Richard Sutcliffe claim Wells Fargo offered them a temporary home loan modification after they fell behind on their mortgage payments. The Sutcliffes made the required reduced payments but did not receive paperwork for a loan modification at the end of the trial period. Instead Wells Fargo sent paperwork indicating the loan was in default and another letter stating it was not going to permanently modify their loan. Over a month later, Wells Fargo sent another letter offering them a "Special Forbearance Plan," under which they would make more reduced payments. Plaintiffs made the payments, only to be sent another letter again stating the loan was in default. The bank returned one payment and told the Sutcliffes not to make any more. Soon after they received a letter from a law firm indicating they had been retained by Wells Fargo to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiffs asked Wells Fargo again to reconsider the loan modification. The bank responded by putting them on another forbearance plan. Plaintiffs accepted the offer and began making payments. They soon received another letter saying the property would be sold at a trustee's sale. Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of "all homeowners nationwide who received a trial loan modification proposal substantially similar to the TPP (Home Affordable Modification Program Trial Period) from any of the Defendants; made the payments set forth in the proposal; provided true information with respect to all representations required by the proposal; and were either (a) denied a permanent loan modification; (b) offered an illusory 'modification' on terms substantially similar to their unmodified loan; and/or (c) who received, entered into, and complied with the above described Forbearance Plans from Wells Fargo, consisting of the Offer Letter and Agreement, in substantially the same form(s) presented to Plaintiffs." Plaintiffs accuse Wells Fargo of unfair competition, breach of contract and bad faith. Claims for rescission and restitution were rendered moot when the Sutcliffes recently accepted a permanent loan modification from Wells Fargo, according to the ruling. The court rejected Wells Fargo's argument that the other claims were not ripe, finding their claims "turn on conduct that had already occurred at the time the action was filed, namely, Wells Fargo's failure to offer them a permanent modification after Plaintiffs allegedly complied with all requirements of the TPP." The court also noted that "the allegations were sufficient to show that denying judicial consideration would have imposed significant hardship on Plaintiffs because they had received notices that they were in default on their loan and that their file had been passed on to Wells Fargo's counsel to initiate foreclosure proceedings." Judge Spero similarly refuted Wells Fargo's argument that by offering a permanent modification, all plaintiffs' claims are moot. According to the ruling, "claims that are related to a foreclosure but which are based on alleged wrongful conduct that goes beyond the wrongful foreclosure are not necessarily rendered moot where the foreclosure is vacated . . . The Court finds that is the case here because Plaintiffs' claims are based on Wells Fargo's alleged unfair and deceptive conduct in connection with the two forbearance offers and the TPP and not on wrongful conduct committed in foreclosure proceedings." The court found Wells Fargo's assertion that the relevant conduct in the case did not occur in California to be a factual question that may be suitable at summary judgment but does not support dismissal. Wells Fargo had tried to have plaintiffs' allegations under California's unfair competition law tossed on the grounds that the conduct did not occur in California. Concluding that the public would likely be deceived by communications from Wells Fargo that claim the borrower would be offered a modification if the borrower complied with the terms of the TPP and forbearance the court found the allegations sufficient to hold up at this stage of the litigation. While noting disagreements among courts about whether an enforceable contract was created when the TPP was sent to plaintiffs, Judge Spero ultimately found it was, at least for the purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss, rejecting multiple arguments by Wells Fargo, including that the TPP could not create an enforceable contract because it did not set forth the terms of repayment that would apply to the modified loan. According to the ruling, "As the court explained in (Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank), while the TPP did not set forth the specific terms of repayment, Wells Fargo was required to offer a modification that was consistent with HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) guidelines and therefore, the agreement did not give Wells Fargo unlimited discretion as to the repayment terms . . . Because Wells Fargo was required to comply with HAMP guidelines in determining the terms of repayment under a modification agreement, the Court concludes, at least at the pleading stage, that the terms of the TPP are sufficiently definite to support the existence of a contract." And since plaintiffs were required to submit financial documents not required under the original loan and agreed to go to credit counseling, they adequately alleged consideration to survive a motion to dismiss. Judge Spero did end up dismissing the claim for breach of contract, however, agreeing with the bank that the only alleged damages are the reduced payments made under the TPP and these payments do not constitute damages because plaintiffs had a pre- existing duty to make payments on their loan. The court gave leave to amend that part of the complaint, however, noting that plaintiffs represented at oral argument that they could allege other types of damages, including adverse credit consequences in an increase in the principal amount owed on the loan. A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint in Sutcliffe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 11-cv-06595 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/11/311-cv-06595.pdf ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *