/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120604.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 4, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 109 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Reaches Settlement to Resolve Cogent-Related Suit 3M COMPANY: Decatur Environmental Lawsuits Sill Pending AIG INC: Appeals From Settlement of NWCR Actions Still Pending AIG INC: "Caremark" Suit Remains Pending in Alabama Court AIG INC: N.Y. Ct. Gives Final OK to $725MM Deal in 2004 Suit AMBASSADORS GROUP: Law Firm to Face Sanctions Over Expense Sheet ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action CANADA: Ottawa To Appeal Class Certification in Steel Plant Suit CANADA: Manitoba Flood Victims Mull Class Action CRARY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 120 ECHO Hydraulic Log Splitters DURHAM REGION, ON: Settlement Set for Final Approval on July 3 EDGAR ONLINE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims FACEBOOK INC: Harwood Feffer Files Class Action in N.Y. Over IPO FRITO-LAY: Sued Over "ALL NATURAL" Products Containing GMOs HASTIE GROUP: May Face Investor Class Action Following Collapse KIRBY CORP: Securities Class Suit Sill Pending in New Jersey NAT'L FOOTBALL: Three Ex-Players File Concussion Class Action NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuse SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: SDCRAA Sued Over Illegal "Trip Fees" SUN LIFE: Defendants' Participation Needed in Funding Approval THORNBURG MORTGAGE: August 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set TOYS "R" US: Recalls 24,000 Imaginarium Activity Centers TURKISH REPUBLIC: Sued in D.C. Over Fraudulent Property Scheme VECTOR GROUP: Court Dismisses Claims in 'Smith' Class Action VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Defends 'Brown' Class Action WELLS FARGO: Faces Overtime Class Action in California ********* 3M COMPANY: Reaches Settlement to Resolve Cogent-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company negotiated a settlement in March to resolve a class action lawsuit filed by Cogent, Inc. shareholders, according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In September 2010, various parties, on behalf of a purported class of shareholders of Cogent, Inc., commenced three lawsuits against the Company, Cogent, and its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Plaintiffs allege that 3M, in connection with its tender offer for Cogent shares, aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Cogent directors and seek an unspecified amount of damages. The three cases were consolidated, expedited discovery was conducted, and Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the acquisition was denied on October 1, 2010. On November 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added Cogent directors appointed by 3M, as named defendants, and asserted additional claims of breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition and a subsequent offering period. 3M completed its acquisition of Cogent in December 2010. 3M has moved to dismiss all claims. In response to 3M's motion, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in August 2011. 3M has moved to dismiss all claims of the second amended complaint. In March 2012, all parties to the litigation agreed to settle this litigation for an amount that is not material to the Company. Separately, several purported holders of Cogent shares, representing a total of approximately 5.8 million shares, have asserted appraisal rights under Delaware law. The Company has answered the appraisal petition and is defending this matter vigorously. Founded in 1902 and based in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company -- http://www.3m.com/-- operates as a diversified technology company worldwide. The Company has various business segments -- Industrial and Transportation segment; Health Care segment; Consumer and Office segment; Safety, Security and Protection Services segment; Display and Graphics segment; and Electro and Communications segment. 3M COMPANY: Decatur Environmental Lawsuits Sill Pending ------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company continues to defend itself in class action environmental lawsuits relating to its manufacturing facility in Decatur, Alabama, according to the Company' May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury- related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. Also, in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in the first action described above filed in the same court in 2002. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted. In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named defendants in the case include 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC and Biological Processors of America. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the first case filed there. No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing. Founded in 1902 and based in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company -- http://www.3m.com/-- operates as a diversified technology company worldwide. The Company has various business segments -- Industrial and Transportation segment; Health Care segment; Consumer and Office segment; Safety, Security and Protection Services segment; Display and Graphics segment; and Electro and Communications segment. AIG INC: Appeals From Settlement of NWCR Actions Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals challenging the settlement of a lawsuit filed against American International Group, Inc., on behalf of participating members of the National Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool, remains pending, according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On May 24, 2007, the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), on behalf of the participating members of the National Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool (the NWCRP), filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AIG with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its residual market assessments for workers' compensation insurance. The complaint alleged claims for violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), breach of contract, fraud and related state law claims arising out of AIG's alleged underpayment of these assessments between 1970 and the present and sought damages purportedly in excess of $1 billion. On August 6, 2007, the Court denied AIG's motion seeking to dismiss or stay the complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Southern District of New York. On December 26, 2007, the Court denied AIG's motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 17, 2008, AIG filed an amended answer, counterclaims and third-party claims against NCCI (in its capacity as attorney-in- fact for the NWCRP), the NWCRP, its board members, and certain of the other insurance companies that are members of the NWCRP alleging violations of RICO, as well as claims for conspiracy, fraud, and other state law claims. The counterclaim-defendants and third-party defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 9, 2008. On January 26, 2009, AIG filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On February 23, 2009, the Court issued a decision and order sustaining AIG's counterclaims and sustaining, in part, AIG's third-party claims. The Court also dismissed certain of AIG's third-party claims without prejudice. On April 13, 2009, third-party defendant Liberty Mutual Group filed third-party counterclaims against AIG, certain of its subsidiaries, and former AIG executives. On August 23, 2009, the Court granted AIG's motion to dismiss the NCCI complaint for lack of standing. On September 25, 2009, AIG filed its First Amended Complaint, reasserting its RICO claims against certain insurance companies that both underreported their workers' compensation premium and served on the NWCRP Board, and repleading its fraud and other state law claims. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on October 30, 2009. On October 8, 2009, Liberty Mutual filed an amended counterclaim against AIG. The amended counterclaim is substantially similar to the complaint initially filed by NCCI, but also seeks damages related to non- NWCRP states, guaranty funds, and special assessments, in addition to asserting claims for other violations of state law. The amended counterclaim also removes as defendants the former AIG executives. On October 30, 2009, AIG filed a motion to dismiss the Liberty amended counterclaim. On April 1, 2009, Safeco Insurance Company of America and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of a purported class of all NWCRP participant members, against AIG and certain of its subsidiaries with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its residual market assessments for workers' compensation insurance. The complaint was styled as an "alternative complaint," should the Court grant AIG's motion to dismiss the NCCI lawsuit for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. The allegations in the class action complaint are substantially similar to those filed by the NWCRP, but the complaint names former AIG executives as defendants and asserts a RICO claim against those executives. On August 28, 2009, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, removing the AIG executives as defendants. On October 30, 2009, AIG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 16, 2010, Safeco and Ohio Casualty filed their motion for class certification, which AIG opposed on October 8, 2010. On July 1, 2010, the Court ruled on the pending motions to dismiss that were directed at all parties' claims. With respect to the underreporting NWCRP companies' and board members' motion to dismiss AIG's first amended complaint, the Court denied the motion to dismiss all counts except AIG's claim for unjust enrichment, which it found to be precluded by the surviving claims for breach of contract. With respect to NCCI and the NWCRP's motion to dismiss AIG's first amended complaint, the Court denied the NCCI and the NWCRP's motions to dismiss AIG's claims for an equitable accounting and an action on an open, mutual, and current account. With respect to AIG's motions to dismiss Liberty's counterclaims and the class action complaint, the Court denied both motions, except that it dismissed the class claim for promissory estoppel. On July 30, 2010, the NWCRP filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling denying its motion to dismiss AIG's claims for an equitable accounting and an action on an open, mutual, and current account. The Court denied the NWCRP's motion for reconsideration on September 16, 2010. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July 16, 2010. AIG opposed the motion. On January 5, 2011, AIG executed a term sheet with a group of intervening plaintiffs, made up of seven participating members of the NWCRP that filed a motion to intervene in the class action for the purpose of settling the claims at issue on behalf of a settlement class. The proposed class-action settlement would require AIG to pay $450 million to satisfy all liabilities to the class members arising out of the workers' compensation premium reporting issues, a portion of which would be funded out of the remaining amount held in the Workers' Compensation Fund less any amounts previously withdrawn to satisfy AIG's regulatory settlement obligations, as addressed above. On January 13, 2011, their motion to intervene was granted. On January 19, 2011, the intervening class plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Intervention. On January 28, 2011, AIG and the intervening class plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement embodying the terms set forth in the January 5, 2011 term sheet and filed a joint motion for certification of the settlement class and preliminary approval of the settlement. If approved by the Court (and such approval becomes final), the settlement agreement will resolve and dismiss with prejudice all claims that have been made or that could have been made in the consolidated litigations pending in the Northern District of Illinois arising out of workers' compensation premium reporting, including the class action, other than claims that are brought by any class member that opts out of the settlement. On April 29, 2011, Liberty Mutual filed papers in opposition to preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and in opposition to certification of a settlement class, in which it alleged AIG's actual exposure, should the class action continue through judgment, to be in excess of $3 billion. AIG disputes and will defend against this allegation. The Court held a hearing on the motions for class certification and preliminary approval of the proposed class-action settlement on June 21 and July 25, 2011. On August 1, 2011, the Court issued an opinion and order granting the motion for class certification and preliminarily approving the proposed class-action settlement, subject to certain minor modifications that the Court noted the parties already had agreed to make. The opinion and order became effective upon the entry of a separate Findings and Order Preliminarily Certifying a Settlement Class and Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement on August 5, 2011. Liberty Mutual sought leave from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to appeal the August 5, 2011 class certification decision, which was denied on August 19, 2011. Notice of the settlement was issued to the class members on August 19, 2011 advising that any class member wishing to opt out of or object to the class-action settlement was required to do so by October 3, 2011. RLI Insurance Company and its affiliates, which were to receive less than one thousand dollars under the proposed settlement, sent the only purported opt-out notice. Liberty Mutual, including its subsidiaries Safeco and Ohio Casualty, and the Kemper group of insurance companies, through their affiliate Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, were the only two objectors. AIG and the settling class plaintiffs filed responses to the objectors' submissions on October 28, 2011. The Court conducted a final fairness hearing on November 29, 2011. Immediately prior to the hearing, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty withdrew its objection to the settlement. On December 21, 2011, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement, but staying that ruling pending a forthcoming opinion. On February 28, 2012, the Court entered a final order and judgment approving the class action settlement. Liberty Mutual, Safeco and Ohio Casualty filed notices of their intent to appeal the Court's final order and judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has consolidated the appeals. The $450 million settlement amount, which is currently held in escrow pending final resolution of the class action settlement, was funded in part from the approximately $191.5 million remaining in the Workers' Compensation Fund, after the transfer of the $146.5 million in fines, penalties, and premium taxes discussed in the NAIC Examination of Workers' Compensation Premium Reporting matter above into a separate escrow account pursuant to the regulatory settlement agreement. In the event that the proposed class action settlement is not approved, the litigation will resume. As of March 31, 2012, AIG has an accrued liability equal to the amounts payable under the settlement. No new updates on the case were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing with the SEC. American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/ -- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S. and internationally. The Company operates in three segments: Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing. AIG INC: "Caremark" Suit Remains Pending in Alabama Court --------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action lawsuit involving Caremark Rx, Inc., is still pending in Alabama, according to American International Group, Inc.'s May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. The plaintiffs in the second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy. They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of coverage. In addition, the intervenors originally alleged that various lawyers and law firms who represented parties in the underlying class and derivative litigation (the Lawyer Defendants) were also liable for fraud and suppression, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the statute of limitations. In November 2007, the trial court dismissed the intervenors' complaint against the Lawyer Defendants, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal in September 2008. After the case was sent back down to the trial court, the intervenors retained additional counsel and filed an Amended Complaint in Intervention that named only Caremark and AIG and various subsidiaries as defendants, purported to bring claims against all defendants for deceit and conspiracy to deceive, and purported to bring a claim against AIG and its subsidiaries for aiding and abetting Caremark's alleged deception. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in Intervention, and the plaintiffs moved to disqualify all of the lawyers for the intervenors because, among other things, the newly retained firm had previously represented Caremark. The intervenors, in turn, moved to disqualify the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the first-filed action. The cross- motions to disqualify were withdrawn after the two sets of plaintiffs agreed that counsel for the original plaintiffs would act as lead counsel, and intervenors also withdrew their Amended Complaint in Intervention. The trial court approved all of the foregoing steps and, in April 2009, established a schedule for class action discovery that was to lead to a hearing on class certification in March 2010. The Court has since appointed a special master to oversee class action discovery and has directed the parties to submit a new discovery schedule after certain discovery disputes are resolved. Class discovery is ongoing. A class certification hearing has been set for May 30, 2012. As of May 3, 2012, the parties have not completed class action discovery, general discovery has not commenced, and the court has not determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or scope of any class. As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation. American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/ -- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S. and internationally. The Company operates in three segments: Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing. AIG INC: N.Y. Ct. Gives Final OK to $725MM Deal in 2004 Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A New York federal court in February entered a final order approving a $725 million settlement resolving a 2004 consolidated securities fraud class action complaint against American International Group, Inc., according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud class action suits were filed in the Southern District of New York against AIG and consolidated as In re American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2004 Securities Litigation). Subsequently, a separate, though similar, securities fraud action was also brought against AIG by certain Florida pension funds. The lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2004 Securities Litigation is a group of public retirement systems and pension funds benefiting Ohio state employees, suing on behalf of themselves and all purchasers of AIG's publicly traded securities between October 28, 1999 and April 1, 2005. The named defendants are AIG and a number of present and former AIG officers and directors, as well as C.V. Starr & Co., Inc., SICO, General Reinsurance Corporation (General Re), and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), among others. The lead plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG: (i) concealed that it engaged in anti- competitive conduct through alleged payment of contingent commissions to brokers and participation in illegal bid-rigging; (ii) concealed that it used "income smoothing" products and other techniques to inflate its earnings; (iii) concealed that it marketed and sold "income smoothing" insurance products to other companies; and (iv) misled investors about the scope of government investigations. In addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that Maurice R. Greenberg, AIG's former Chief Executive Officer, manipulated AIG's stock price. The lead plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 20(a) and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. On July 14, 2010, AIG approved the terms of a settlement with lead plaintiffs. The Settlement is conditioned on, among other things, court approval and a minimum level of shareholder participation. Under the terms of the Settlement, if consummated, AIG would pay an aggregate of $725 million. On July 20, 2010, at the joint request of AIG and lead plaintiffs, the District Court entered an order staying all deadlines in the case. On November 30, 2010, AIG and lead plaintiffs executed their agreement of settlement and compromise. On November 30, 2010, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with AIG. On October 5, 2011, the District Court granted lead plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement between AIG and lead plaintiffs. Notices to class members of the settlement were mailed on October 14, 2011. On December 2, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and for attorneys' fees. Objections to the settlement and requests to be excluded from the settlement were due to the District Court by December 30, 2011. Only two shareholders objected to the settlement, and 25 shareholders claiming to hold less than 1.5% of AIG's outstanding shares at the end of the class period submitted timely and valid requests to opt out of the class. Of those 25 shareholders, seven are investment funds controlled by the same investment group, and that investment group is the only opt-out who held more than 1,000 shares at the end of the class period. By order dated February 2, 2012, the District Court granted lead plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement between AIG and lead plaintiffs. AIG has fully funded the amount of the Settlement into an escrow account. On January 23, 2012, AIG and the Florida pension funds, who had brought a separate securities fraud action, executed a settlement agreement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, AIG paid $4 million. On February 17, 2012 and March 6, 2012, two objectors appealed the final approval of the settlement. The settlement with the Florida pension funds can be terminated by AIG if either of the objectors' appeals is successful. American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/ -- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S. and internationally. The Company operates in three segments: Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing. AMBASSADORS GROUP: Law Firm to Face Sanctions Over Expense Sheet ---------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal judge plans to sanction a class action law firm that he says purposely padded its hours and expense sheets. U.S. District Judge Justin Quackenbush, of Washington's eastern district, warned Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd on May 25 that he will be sanctioning it, along with attorneys Joy Bull and John Grant. The two led a class action against the student-travel company Ambassadors Group. Judge Quackenbush said he will impose a maximum sanction of a formal written reproval. "(T)he court (had) advised counsel that it was considering the imposition of sanctions by reason of the intentionally misleading and inaccurate claims for monies for expenses and disbursements filed by Mr. Grant and Ms. Bull and their law firm," Judge Quackenbush wrote. "In response to that notice, Ms. Bull and Mr. Grant and the Robbins law firm have acknowledged that 'mistakes were made' in the submittals for reimbursement. The court is unable to find that these 'mistakes' were inadvertent or mere oversights." The attorneys are seeking 25 percent of a $7.5 million settlement, plus expenses. In February, Judge Quackenbush asked Ms. Bull and Mr. Grant to show why class members should pay for expenses that included a $402 dinner for four, expensive hotel rooms and two round-trip plane ticket that cost almost $4,000. The dinner included two $72 bottles of wine and a $60 tip for the waiter. Mr. Grant wrote that he should've reduced the charge when he submitted it. Judge Quackenbush ruled on May 25, after two partners in the firm acknowledged the inappropriateness of the charge, that it should be struck entirely from the expenses sheet. He reduced a claim for a $1,676.40 round-trip plane ticket from New York to Spokane and a claim for a $2,169 round-trip ticket from New York to Los Angeles to the current market prices for coach tickets -- $356 and $401. Already reduced was a claim for $125,935 for a private investigator, an amount that provided an hourly rate of $445. It was reduced to $31,710.15. Judge Quackenbush also slashed the amount of hours the two claimed they worked. Ms. Bull said she worked 135 hours, but Quackenbush says that at a maximum she should claim 95. Mr. Grant should claim a maximum of 40 for preparing the amended complaint, he added. Ms. Bull had said any mistakes made by her were the result of a lack of focus stemming from her husband's sickness and death. "The court recognizes the emotional difficulty a spouse goes through during an illness and death of a family member, but such circumstances cannot excuse the conduct of counsel herein," Judge Quackenbush wrote. "The claims of disbursements were not accurate and those claims were not the result of inadvertent mistakes. They were, at a minimum, made with a reckless disregard for their accuracy or even intentionally false." Judge Quackenbush ordered a new timesheet with his revisions and will consider "reasonable percentage suggestions" for the firm's award. A judge in Oregon rejected Ms. Bull's claimed travel expenses in a different case in 2007. ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Atheros Communications, Qualcomm and T Merger Sub persuaded a federal judge to dismiss a securities class action over their 2011 merger. A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motions to Dismiss in Krieger v. Atheros Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv- 00640 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/qualcomm.pdf CANADA: Ottawa To Appeal Class Certification in Steel Plant Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy King, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that the provincial and federal governments will go to court this fall seeking leave to appeal the certification of a class-action lawsuit stemming from contamination associated with the Sydney steel plant and coke ovens sites. A hearing before a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judge in Halifax has been scheduled for Nov. 5, when the judge could rule or reserve decision. Should the application prove successful part or all of their grounds of appeal, the sides will be back in court March 19 to 21, 2013 when the appeal itself will be argued. "They have a right to appeal, it's unfortunate that we're not sitting down and discussing and resolving the case at this stage here, now that it's been certified by a strong decision by Justice (John Murphy)," said Ray Wagner, lawyer for the plaintiffs. Justice Murphy certified the suit in January. The representative plaintiffs -- Neila MacQueen, Joe Petitpas, Ann Ross and Iris Crawford -- are seeking financial compensation and a medical monitoring fund for contamination associated with the operation of the sites between 1967 to 2000. They are not seeking compensation for personal injury. The fact that dates have already been set aside if the Crowns are granted leave to appeal should help expedite the matter, Mr. Wagner said. The attorneys general for Ottawa and the province have also applied to stay the proceedings while the appeals process plays out. That motion will be heard July 12. CANADA: Manitoba Flood Victims Mull Class Action ------------------------------------------------ CBC News reports that Lake Manitoba residents and others whose properties were damaged in last year's floods will discuss whether to launch a class-action lawsuit against the provincial government. Upwards of 400 Lake Manitoba homeowners, cottage owners and others -- many of whom are upset with the province over its handling of flood claims -- are invited to a meeting June 6 at Sisler High School in Winnipeg to discuss their next move. "It's just an information-gathering meeting to educate our membership as to whether or not they feel they, you know, want to go with a class-action suit or not," Dennis Turek, a spokesman for the Twin Lakes Beach Association, told CBC News. Numerous properties along Lake Manitoba were heavily damaged in the spring flood of 2011, including those on Twin Lakes Beach, Laurentian Beach, Sandpiper Beach, Pioneer Resort, Delta Beach and Johnson Beach. Powerful winds whipped across the rain-swollen lake in May and June of that year, creating large waves that pounded the shore and washed inland. Mr. Turek said not everyone who lived along Lake Manitoba is upset with the province, but many are frustrated with the slow pace of the province's claims and compensation processes. "There are many that I know of that are just worn down, because the terms and conditions are quite difficult to understand," he said. "We have deadlines that are fast approaching, and yet some people like myself haven't even had a settlement offer. So yeah, there's a high level of frustration." The one-year anniversary of the Lake Manitoba flood was on May 31 and Mr. Turek said any lawsuit must be filed within two years of that date. "The clock is ticking on us, so as an association, we felt it was time to organize such a meeting to help our membership make an informed decision as to how they want to move on," he said. No media will be allowed inside this week's meeting, Mr. Turek said. CRARY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 120 ECHO Hydraulic Log Splitters ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Crary Industries Inc. of West Fargo, North Dakota, announced a voluntary recall of about 120 ECHO Bear Cat log splitters. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The end cap of the log splitter's hydraulic cylinder can break away from the body of the log splitter, posing an impact hazard to the user or bystander. Crary Industries has received three reports of the hydraulic cylinder end caps detaching resulting in one injury from a cylinder reportedly striking a consumer in the head. This recall involves ECHO Bear Cat brand hydraulic log splitter with model numbers LS27270 and LS27270T, with a date code of 012908 stamped on the hydraulic cylinder. The model number is printed on the main beam of the log splitters. The date code is stamped on the hydraulic cylinder near the capped end. The log splitters are black and orange with ECHO Bear Cat printed on the hydraulic cylinder. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12189.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at ECHO Bear Cat dealers nationwide from October 2007 through March 2012 for about $2,600. Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact the nearest dealer for instruction on receiving a free replacement cylinder installed by an authorized dealer. For additional information, contact Crary Industries toll-free at (888) 625-4520 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bearcatproducts.com/ DURHAM REGION, ON: Settlement Set for Final Approval on July 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Jackson, writing for DurhamRegion.com, reports that a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit against Durham Region Health puts a C$5.99 price tag on the patient data doctors are privy to. The lawsuit was filed against Durham Region after a nurse lost a USB key laden with the unencrypted personal information of 83,524 people in December 2009. According to the proposed settlement, which still must be approved by a judge but was signed by lawyers for both parties on May 3, the Region will pay C$500,000 in costs, disbursements and taxes. If the judge agrees to that amount, the loss of each person's data will cost Durham Region at least C$5.99. The Region could also be on the hook for individual payments to those who took a financial hit because their information was on the lost USB key -- if those people can prove that happened. "It is a reasonable outcome that balances the rights of the class members with the financial resources available to the Region of Durham," said Sean Brown, lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a statement attached to the proposed settlement. The USB key contained names, phone numbers, dates of birth, health card numbers and primary physician names of people vaccinated against H1N1 in eight clinics from Oct. 23 to Dec. 15, 2009. It was dropped somewhere between the regional headquarters parking garage and the building on Dec. 16, 2009. The key was never found, sparking major concerns of identity theft. Every extra piece of information about a person makes it easier to commit fraud. More than C$13.2 million was reported stolen from Canadian victims of identity theft in 2011, according to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. The class action suit against Durham Region, which originally demanded C$40 million in damages, was filed in April 2011. It alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of privacy, public misfeasance and a breach of Charter rights. None of the allegations have been proven in court. In the proposed settlement agreement, Durham Region expressly denied all liability. Yet the proposed settlement outlines a process for people to file compensation claims. Before any cash is paid, Durham Region will take steps to "mitigate the harm." If a person is still not satisfied, they can try for monetary compensation. The process could take as long as eight months. How much money a person receives will be "based on common law principles." It is not known how many of those vaccinated at the flu clinics will be entitled to claims. At the time the key was lost, however, Durham officials said anyone who opened the file would have seen meaningless symbols and would have had to decipher them for pertinent information. Durham officials and lawyers for both parties could not be reached for comment. The settlement will go before a judge for final approval July 3. If approved, people whose information was on the lost USB key have until Aug. 2, 2016 to make a claim. EDGAR ONLINE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Edgar Online is selling itself too cheaply to R.R. Donnelly & Sons, for $70.5 million, shareholders claim in Chancery Court. A copy of the Complaint in Trettel v. Farrell, et al., Case No. 7573 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. 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 - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 FACEBOOK INC: Harwood Feffer Files Class Action in N.Y. Over IPO ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Harwood Feffer LLP on May 29 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on May 25, 2012 (Case No. 12-cv-4215) on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Facebook Inc. through its initial public offering. The action is pending in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is brought against the Company's three lead underwriters -- Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and Goldman Sachs & Co. The lawsuit alleges that the three underwriters knew that the market for the Company's shares was weaker than the public believed by virtue of their having advised certain of their major clients to reduce their requests for allocations of the Company's shares due to certain weaknesses of the Company's prospects of which they were aware. Notwithstanding this material non-public information about market interest, the lead underwriters (a) increased to the highest end of the proposed range the Company's share price and (b) increased by 25% the number of shares sold in the offering. By selling short into the market their 15% over- allotment while in possession of such material, non-public information, the lead underwriters violated Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you bought the Company's stock in its initial public offering, you may move the Court, no later than July 24, 2012, to appoint you as lead plaintiff, a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members. The Court must determine whether the class member's claim is typical of other members' claims, and whether the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to recover is not, however, affected by your decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. If you wish to discuss this action with us or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with regard to the case, please contact the following: Samuel K. Rosen, Esq. Craig Lowther, Esq. Harwood Feffer LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Toll Free: 877-935-7400 E-mail: srosen@hfesq.com clowther@hfesq.com FRITO-LAY: Sued Over "ALL NATURAL" Products Containing GMOs ----------------------------------------------------------- Alyssa Schwartz, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. a Texas corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-02740 (N.D. Calif., May 29, 2012) alleges that the Defendant represented without qualification that certain of its products are "ALL NATURAL," but has not disclosed and concealed the fact that the products contain Genetically Modified Organisms ("GMOs"). The Defendant markets its Bean Dip Product as "ALL NATURAL," but contrary to its representations, the Product uses plants or plant derivatives grown from GMOs, Ms. Schwartz contends. She argues that products containing GMOs should not be labeled "all natural" without also disclosing the fact that the products contain GMOs. Hence, she asserts, the Defendant's advertising and labeling of its products as "ALL NATURAL" is deceptive and likely to mislead the public as a result. Ms. Schwartz is a resident of San Francisco, California. She purchased FRITO-LAY's Bean Dip, SunChips, and Tostitos chips during the Class Period and specifically during March 2012, from Safeway Supermarkets located in San Francisco. Frito-Lay, a Delaware corporation, is headquartered in Piano, Texas. Frito-Lay is the owner, manufacturer and distributor of the Product, and is the company that created and authorized the false, misleading and deceptive labeling and advertising for the Product. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 436-6437 Facsimile: (415) 692-6607 E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com - and - L. De-Wayne Layfield, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD PO Box 3829 Beaumont, TX 77704-3829 Telephone: (409) 832-1891 Facsimile: (866) 280-3004 E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com HASTIE GROUP: May Face Investor Class Action Following Collapse --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Urban, writing for The Australian, reports that lawyers have been circling the collapsed Hastie Group for more than a year, with a potential investor class action likely. An action was originally flagged as long ago as April 2011, after the company's second profit downgrade in six months. As shareholders explore the viability of launching a legal claim over their losses, it has emerged that law firm Slater & Gordon and litigation funder IMF Australia first looked at the ailing engineering services firm for potential breaches of disclosure requirements following its unveiling of a AUD94 million loss for the first half of the 2010-11 financial year. That news wiped more than 70 per cent from Hastie's share price. But a subsequent recapitalization plan -- in which investors including Lazard Private Equity, Thorney Holdings, Perennial and Schroder Investment Management pitched in AUD160 million -- is believed to have put a halt to any potential litigation at the time. Hastie Group, together with 44 subsidiary companies, was placed into voluntary administration on May 28 after accounting irregularities worth more than AUD20 million were uncovered. It owes more than AUD500 million to a syndicate of seven banks. Having floated on the Australian Securities Exchange in 2005, Hastie has been struggling for some time, thanks to its large debt and weak cashflows. The most recent breach of its borrowing covenants occurred during the first half of this financial year, when it reported a AUD149 million interim loss stemming from writedowns associated with its struggling Middle Eastern business. Hastie's long-time auditor, Deloitte, had made various mentions of the company's tenuous financial positions in its twice-yearly audits in recent years. Its audit for the December 2010 half year, which was released in April 2011, along with Hastie's interim results, pointed to the significant uncertainty regarding the group's ability to continue as a going concern. The substantial drop in Hastie's share price at the time -- it fell from 92c to 24.5c -- prompted Slater & Gordon to look into the company. "Hastie's been on the radar since then," said a source familiar with the matter. "The reason it didn't proceed at the time was that the . . . market was very much focused on the recapitalization plan." IMF Australia's executive director, John Walker, confirmed that his firm had also conducted preliminary due diligence on funding a potential action around the same time. "We can identify bad behavior, but it is up to shareholders to identify which cases proceed," Mr. Walker said. With major investors said to be reeling over Hastie's collapse, a flurry of litigation is expected. Slater & Gordon and rival law firm Maurice Blackburn are understood to be closely monitoring the situation. Their ability to fund a viable action would depend upon whether there were any funds remaining within the collapsed group or whether the company has paid-up directors' and officers' liability insurance. According to its latest annual report, it does. However, recent changes to the Corporations Act mean that shareholders who successfully claim to have bought shares at a time the market was not fully informed rank below all creditors in a corporate insolvency. KIRBY CORP: Securities Class Suit Sill Pending in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby Corporation continues to defend itself against a securities class action complaint in New Jersey, according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On January 30, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in a case styled Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc., et al. v. John J. Nicola, et al., the Company, its subsidiary, K- Sea, and current and former officers and directors of K-Sea were named defendants in a putative class action complaint asserting that during the period of January 30, 2009 to January 27, 2010, K- Sea allegedly failed to disclose certain facts regarding K-Sea's operations and financial condition, and asserting violations of Sections 10(b)(5) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that this suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter based on the information available to the Company at this time. The Company does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements; however, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this matter. No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing. Founded in 1921 and headquartered in Houston, Texas, Kirby Corporation -- http://www.kirbycorp.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides marine transportation and diesel engine services primarily in the United States. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Three Ex-Players File Concussion Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, writing for CourierPostOnline.com, reports that three former Philadelphia Eagles from South Jersey have sued the National Football League, saying they were not warned of the health risks from repeated concussions and other brain injuries. The complaint, intended to be a class-action suit on behalf of former NFL players living in New Jersey, was brought by Michael Haddix, 50, of Sewell; Greg Brown, 55, of Sicklerville and Lawrence Watkins, 65, of Mount Laurel. Mr. Haddix was a fullback for the Eagles and Green Bay Packers from 1983 to 1990. Mr. Brown, a defensive end, also played for the Atlanta Falcons between 1981 and 1988. Mr. Watkins was a fullback with the Eagles and three other teams from 1969 to 1977. All three men have "various neuorological conditions and symptoms related to . . . multiple head traumas," according to the lawsuit. Among other goals, the lawsuit seeks medical monitoring for current and former NFL players, as well as "financial compensation" for chronic injuries and related losses. The suit, initially filed in Superior Court in Camden, was moved to federal court in Camden at the request of the NFL's attorneys. The lawsuit asserts the NFL "was aware of the evidence" that repeated concussions and other brain injuries could cause long- term health problems but kept that information from its players. "Rather than warn players that they risked permanent brain injury if they returned to play too soon after sustaining a concussion, the NFL ignored the issue, actively deceived players and misrepresented to players that concussions did not present serious, life-altering risks," the suit contends. Locks Law Firm of Cherry Hill, which is representing the players along with Haddonfield attorney Craig Mitnick, asserted "repetitive traumatic brain injuries sustained by former NFL players during their careers is pervasive and possibly an epidemic." Beth Wilkinson, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing the NFL, declined to comment on May 29. But in a court filing, the NFL said the relationship between teams and players is governed by collective bargaining agreements, or CBAs, that are "the product of exhaustive arm's-length negotiations" between the players' union and the NFL's management council. NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuse -------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Weiser, writing for The New York Times, reports that eleven current and former inmates in New York City's jails have filed a lawsuit charging that correction officials have tolerated and even condoned the unprovoked beatings of inmates by guards, resulting in serious injuries to prisoners and millions of dollars in legal settlements paid by the city. The 89-page complaint, recently filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan by the Legal Aid Society and two private law firms, seeks class-action status to cover almost all of the city's thousands of current inmates, and future inmates, as well. "The pattern of brutality in the city's jails is deeply entrenched," the lawsuit says, noting that five previous class- actions, dating to the early 1990s, exposed "a culture of routine and institutionalized staff violence against inmates." But despite court orders and settlements, the suit says, "the abuse has continued." The suit names the city's correction commissioner, Dora B. Schriro, as a defendant, along with other officials and officers who it says have "created and now perpetuate a policy of permitting uniformed staff to use unlawful, excessive force with impunity." Correction officials responded sharply to the lawsuit's assertions. "To suggest, much less allege, that the department condones improper uses of force in any way ignores the reality of the department's many actions to the contrary," a spokeswoman, Sharman Stein, said. Ms. Stein noted that the Correction Department admitted more than 85,000 inmates annually. The suit "argues that 11 incidents over the past several years are indicative of an infirm pattern and practice," she said. "It categorically is not." Ms. Stein added that the department's policies limited the use of force to situations like ending inmate-on-inmate violence, defending staff members from a physical attack or "when there is no practical alternative available to prevent serious physical injury to staff, visitors, inmates or any other person." The lawsuit describes what it depicts as the unprovoked beatings of the 11 plaintiffs. It says that most of those beaten had to be hospitalized, with some needing surgery. The traumas inflicted included spinal injury, broken bones in the face and wrist, perforated eardrums and concussions, the suit says. In one 2011 case, according to the suit, a Rikers Island inmate, Shameik Smallwood, was taken by correction officers to a windowless room after being suspected of transferring contraband in a visitation area. The suit says he was handcuffed behind his back and thrown to the floor face down. Officers then punched, kicked and stomped on him, the suit says, adding that he lost consciousness and later had to have facial surgery. Although there are surveillance cameras in the jails, the suit says that "correction officers routinely escort inmates to unmonitored areas before beating them." The plaintiffs are also represented by the firms Ropes & Gray and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady. Beyond damages, the suit seeks reforms in how the Correction Department selects, trains and disciplines personnel, and in how it investigates brutality complaints. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: SDCRAA Sued Over Illegal "Trip Fees" ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that cabbies say in a Superior Court class action that the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority charges illegal "trip fees" for picking up fares at the airport. A copy of the Complaint in Mojadam v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, et al., Case No. 37-2012-00098040 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/sdaIRPORT.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raul Cadena, Esq. Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq. Gordon S. Churchill, Esq. CADENA CHURCHILL, LLP 701 "B" Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 546-0888 SUN LIFE: Defendants' Participation Needed in Funding Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that third- party funding arrangements for class actions may be legal in Ontario, but a recent Ontario Superior Court ruling threatens to make their contents open season for defendants. That's the impact of Justice Paul Perell's refusal to allow plaintiffs in a proposed class action to seek funding approval by way of an in camera motion without the participation of the defendants. In his ruling in the case of Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Justice Perell also denied the plaintiff's application to have the motion materials, including the funding agreement, sealed. "The defendants don't tell us what their war chest is," says Won Kim of Toronto's Kim Orr LLP, who with colleagues Victoria Paris and Megan McPhee, represented the plaintiffs. "Why should the defendants know how much we have available to pursue our case?" Mr. Kim notes that, although two decades have passed since Ontario's Class Proceedings Act came into force, only three or four firms have been able to sustain significant plaintiffs' class-action practices. In this case, the third-party funder would be Bridgepoint Global Litigation Services Inc., a Toronto company that bills itself as the country's largest litigation lender. Mr. Kim argued in court that disclosure of the funding agreement would breach solicitor-client privilege, adversely affect a fair trial, harm the administration of justice, and impair access to justice. But Justice Perell ruled defendants should be allowed to participate in approval hearings both because they would be affected by its outcome and because they might raise questions that would provide useful information to the court, including questions relating to the agreement's legality. Those questions, Justice Perell concluded, could not be answered without determining the precise role of the funder. As Justice Perell saw it, the funding agreement was not privileged. It was not about communications between solicitor and client but about who was paying for the lawsuit, the funder's motivation and the independence of the representative plaintiff. To the extent that a third-party agreement contained privileged information, its inclusion was both unnecessary and improper. While Mr. Kim and his colleagues do not agree with Judge Perell's decision in Fehr, they will not appeal the ruling -- especially in light of a May 17 decision by Judge Perell that gives a green light to third-party funding in Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v. Sino-Forest Corp. Justice Perell did put limits on defendants' rights regarding such motions, including a prohibition on cross-examination without first obtaining leave of the court. Paul Morrison -- pmorriso@mccarthy.ca -- who with colleagues Glynnis Burt -- gburt@mccarthy.ca -- and Heather Meredith -- hmeredith@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP's Toronto office, acted for Sun Life, says his client is satisfied with the decision. "In terms of what may develop in this area, however, this case is more of a first step than a definitive code," he said. "For example, it remains to be seen how courts will apply the limitation on cross-examination." THORNBURG MORTGAGE: August 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on May 30 announced the pendency and proposed settlement of class action litigation involving Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICOIN RE THORNBURG MORTGAGE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. CIV 07- 815JB/WDS TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THORNBURG MORTGAGE, INC. COMMON STOCK AND/OR PREFERRED STOCK IN THE OPEN MARKET AND/OR IN OR TRACEABLE TO THE OFFERINGS DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN APRIL 19, 2007 AND MARCH 19, 2008, INCLUSIVE AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above- mentioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes of settlement only and that a settlement for Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) has been proposed. A hearing will be held before the Honorable James O. Browning in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, United States Courthouse, 333 Lomas Blvd. N.W., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, 460 Vermejo Courtroom, at 9:00 a.m. (Mountain Time), on August 27, 2012 to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendants;[1] (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. The Settlement only resolves claims against the Settling Defendants and the claims against the Non- Settling Defendants will continue. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: In re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063, (866) 274-4004. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim can also be downloaded from the Claims Administrator's Web site, http://www.strategicclaims.net If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than November 19, 2012. If you are a member of the Class and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim, you will not share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than August 6, 2012, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a member of the Class and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and served on counsel for the parties on or before August 6, 2012, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of the Notice and Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 E-mail: azivitz@ktmc.com bsweet@ktmc.com Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Patrick H. Moran, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com moran@whafh.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT[1] The Settling Defendants are: Garrett Thornburg, Larry A. Goldstone, Clarence G. Simmons, Anne-Drue M. Anderson, David A. Ater, Joseph H. Badal, Eliot R. Cutler, Paul G. Decoff, Michael B. Jeffers, Ike Kalangis, Owen M. Lopez, Francis I. Mullin III, and Stuart C. Sherman. TOYS "R" US: Recalls 24,000 Imaginarium Activity Centers -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Toys "R" Us Inc. of Wayne, New Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 24,000 units of Imaginarium 5-Sided Activity Center. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The small wooden knobs attaching the xylophone keys to the end can detach, causing a choking hazard to young children. Toys "R" Us has received eight reports of the knobs detaching. No injuries have been reported to the firm. This recall involves the Imaginarium 5-Sided Activity Center. The multi-sided center has two triangle-shaped ends with a wooden multi-colored xylophone on one and a mirror on the other. The three sides are square-shaped and include moveable block letters, rotating gears and sliding shapes. The name "Imaginarium" appears in a blue, oval-shaped logo underneath the mirror on one end. The second 'i' in the logo is dotted with a shooting star. The recalled product has model number 46284; Toys "R" Us item number 295909; and has the barcode number 000799985462841. The model number is printed on the back of the box, directly above the bar code. These numerical markings do not appear on the actual product. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12188.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Toys "R" Us stores nationwide and online via http://www.toysrus.com/from August 2009 through September 2010 for about $25. Consumers should immediately stop using the product, move it out of the reach of young children and return it to a Toys "R" Us store for a refund or store credit. For additional information, contact Toys "R" Us toll-free at (800) 869-7787 between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Saturday and between 11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.toysrus.com/safety/ TURKISH REPUBLIC: Sued in D.C. Over Fraudulent Property Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of British homeowners claims in court that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and HSBC Holdings created "a fraudulent property scheme of biblical proportions" that cost people their life's savings by selling them stolen vacation and retirement properties in Northern Cyprus. Four dozen plaintiffs filed a federal RICO class action against the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), HSBC Holdings and HSBC Bank USA. The plaintiffs say that though the TRNC purports itself to be a government, it operates illegally in the Republic of Cyprus through the "brute force" of 40,000 Turkish troops. "The pattern of racketeering activity engaged in by defendants involves a scheme to fraudulently create a pretense of a legitimate recognized government with sovereign powers such as the ability to own and issue title, create corporations, exercise eminent domain, to commit fraud upon the public and foreign investors while, at every turn, seeking to further the illegal enterprise to avoid justice," the class claims. They say the TRNC "brutally displaced civilians" from their homes in 1974, a fact that the organization conceals, and sold the displaced people's properties to the plaintiffs. According to the complaint, HSBC helped the rogue Turkish force in its racket, which included Web site operators, Realtors, real estate agents and attorneys. "HSBC chose to operate in the TRNC illegal enterprise with the TRNC knowing that it was or likely violating the rights of others and/or that the underlying property transaction involving the plaintiffs and members of the class were based on fraudulent or defective title," the plaintiffs claim. They say that the TRNC "could not exist without the infusion of capital from an international banking and money laundering system like HSBC." The class claims the defective title scheme has defrauded foreign investors of billions of dollars. Recently, a federal judge threw out claims against the TRNC filed by pop singer Julio Iglesias, who'd claimed he was duped into agreeing to perform an illegal concert in Cyprus by a military organization. The plaintiffs want the TRNC and HSBC to pay them compensatory and punitive damages for multiple counts of fraud and racketeering. They also want an injunction preventing the TRNC from doing business as North Cyprus or the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, and from falsely marketing and advertising properties. A copy of the Complaint in Latchford, et al. v. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00846 (D.D.C.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/Cyprus.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Athan T. Tsimpedes, Esq. TSIMPEDES LAW FIRM 1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 464-9910 E-mail: athan@tsimpedeslaw.com VECTOR GROUP: Court Dismisses Claims in 'Smith' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- A trial court dismissed in March plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit captioned Smith v. Philip Morris USA, to which Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary is a defendant, according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. Since 1954, the Company's subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC and other United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from cigarettes. In Smith v. Philip Morris, a Kansas state court case filed in February 2000, plaintiffs allege that cigarette manufacturers conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. Class certification was granted in November 2001. On January 18, 2012, the trial court heard oral argument on defendants' motions for summary judgment and on March 23, 2012, the court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries. The Company is also engaged in the real estate business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking to acquire additional operating companies and real estate properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the New York metropolitan area. VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Defends 'Brown' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself in the lawsuit captioned Brown v. Philip Morris USA, according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. Trial is scheduled for October 5, 2012. Since 1954, the Company's subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC and other United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from cigarettes. In April 2001, in Brown v. Philip Morris USA, a California state court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class comprised of adult residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes "during the applicable time period" and who were exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California. In March 2005, the court granted defendants' motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law. In June 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings regarding whether the class representatives have, or can, demonstrate standing. In August 2009, the California Supreme Court denied defendants' rehearing petition and issued its mandate. In September 2009, plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court's September 2004 order finding that plaintiffs' allegations regarding "lights" cigarettes are preempted by federal law, in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Good. In March 2010, the trial court granted reconsideration of its September 2004 order granting partial summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs' "lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions issued since its order was issued, including Good, thereby reinstating plaintiffs' "lights" claims. Since the trial court's prior ruling decertifying the class was reversed on appeal by the California Supreme Court, the parties and the court are treating all claims currently being asserted by the plaintiffs as certified, subject, however, to defendants' challenge to the class representatives' standing to assert their claims. In December 2010, defendants filed a motion for a determination that the class representatives set forth in plaintiffs' tenth amended complaint lacked standing to pursue the claims. The motion was granted by the court. Plaintiffs moved to file an amended complaint adding new class representatives, which motion was granted by the court and in July 2011, plaintiffs filed their eleventh amended complaint adding new putative class representatives. Defendants filed their response in November 2011. Oral argument occurred on January 24, 2012 to consider the defendants' challenge to the new class representatives. Trial is scheduled for October 5, 2012. Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc. subsidiaries. The Company is also engaged in the real estate business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking to acquire additional operating companies and real estate properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the New York metropolitan area. WELLS FARGO: Faces Overtime Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo failed to pay loan underwriters overtime, or give them breaks, a class claims. A copy of the Complaint in Williams v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Case No. 37-2012-00097895 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/wells.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com jcampbell@scalaw.com ********* 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 * * *