/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120620.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 20, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 121
Headlines
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Deepwater Horizon Suit Transferred to Texas
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Awaits Okay of Tronox-Related Suit Settlement
BERNIE MADOFF: Settles Fairfield Sentry Investors' Class Action
BLOOMBERG LP: Call Center Workers File Overtime Class Action
BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Action Over Health Plan Closures
BP PLC: More Than 50,000 Texas Residents Join Class Action
BRF-BRASIL FOODS: Settled Suit vs. Unit for $27-Mil. In 2011
CAMERON INT'L: Awaits OK of Deepwater Horizon Suit Settlements
CANADIAN HONKER: Faces Overtime Class Action in Minnesota
CAPITOL RECORDS: Sued by Tavares Over Digital Music Royalties
CASH AMERICA: Appeal in "Strong" Class Suit Remains Pending
CASH AMERICA: Bid to Reconsider Ruling in "Alfeche" Suit Pending
CEMEX SAB: Settles Two Consolidated Florida Suits for $460,000
CHEMED CORP: Appeal in Suit v. Unit Remains Pending in Calif.
CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Minnesota
CHEMED CORP: Defends Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund Suit
CHEMED CORP: Unpaid Wages Suit Remains Pending in New York
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
CONSOL ENERGY: "Addison" Class Suit Still Stayed in Virginia Ct.
CONSOL ENERGY: Trial in CNX Gas Acquisition-Related Suit in 2013
CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Suit vs. Unit Still Stayed in Virginia Ct.
CONSOL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of New "Comer" Suit
CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends "Hall" Class Suit in Pennsylvania
EXETER HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis C Outbreak
FIREMEN'S ANNUITY: Sued Over Miscalculation of Salary Increases
GOOGLE: Appeals Class Certification Order in Authors' Case
HALLIBURTON CO: Judge Declines to Reconsider RCRA Claim
JPMORGAN CHASE: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Securities Class Action
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Action
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Judge Tosses Securities Fraud Class Action
NUTREX RESEARCH: Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit Denied
QIAO XING: Rosen Law Firm Files Amended Class Action Complaint
RIDGEWOOD WATER: Implements Water Rate Hike Amid Class Action
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Bird Food
STURM RUGER: August 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
THE LENDING CO: Faces Suit Over Illegal Kickbacks to Charities
WEI LABORATORIES: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Facsimiles
WELLPOINT INC: Settles Class Action for $90 Million
*********
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Case No. 12-Civ-4711, on behalf of all persons who purchased
AEterna Zentaris Inc. securities between February 3, 2010 and
April 1, 2012 inclusive.
If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
http://faruqilaw.com/AEZS
There is no cost or obligation to you.
AEterna, AEterna's Chief Executive Officer Juergen Engel and
AEterna's Chief Financial Officer Dennis Turpin are charged with
violations of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants mislead
investors about the timing and success of AEterna's clinical trial
that tested whether the drug perifosine was effective in treating
late stage colorectal cancer.
On April 2, 2012, AEterna shocked the market by disclosing that
perifosine was ineffective in treating colorectal cancer. This
news caused AEterna stock to drop approximately 66% by the close
of the business day.
Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who bought
AEterna securities between February 3, 2010 and April 1, 2012,
excluding defendants and their affiliates. Plaintiff is
represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive
experience in prosecuting class actions and actions involving
corporate fraud.
If you purchased AEterna securities during the Class Period, you
may, not later than August 14, 2012, move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to discuss
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact:
ATTN: Juan Monteverde, Esq.
Richard Gonnello, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue
10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
fmcconville@faruqilaw.com
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Deepwater Horizon Suit Transferred to Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit arising from the
2010 Deepwater Horizon incident was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation disclosed in its April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.
In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out and
an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The
well was operated by BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP) and
Anadarko held a 25% non-operated interest. In October 2011, the
Company and BP entered into a settlement agreement, mutual
releases, and agreement to indemnify, relating to the Deepwater
Horizon events (Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, the Company is fully indemnified by BP against claims
and damages arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),
claims for natural resource damages (NRD) and assessment costs,
and other potential damages. This indemnification is guaranteed
by BP Corporation North America Inc. (BPCNA) and, in the event
that the net worth of BPCNA declines below an agreed-upon amount,
BP p.l.c. has agreed to become the sole guarantor. The Settlement
Agreement does not indemnify Anadarko against potential losses
arising from fines, penalties, or punitive damages. The Company
has not recorded a liability for any costs that are subject to
indemnification by BP.
Numerous Deepwater Horizon event-related civil lawsuits have been
filed against BP and other parties, including the Company. This
litigation has been consolidated into a federal Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) pending before Judge Carl Barbier in the
Louisiana District Court. Only OPA claims seeking economic loss
damages against the Company remain. In addition, certain state
and local governments have provided indication of a likely appeal
of the MDL court's decision that only federal law, and not state
law, applies to Deepwater Horizon event-related claims. The
Company, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, is fully
indemnified by BP against losses arising as a result of claims for
damages, irrespective of whether such claims are based on federal
(including OPA) or state law.
Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August
2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York District Court) on behalf of purported purchasers
of the Company's stock between June 9, 2009, and
June 12, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers. The
complaints allege causes of action arising pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) for purported
misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's liability related to the Deepwater Horizon events. In
March 2012, the New York District Court granted the Lead
Plaintiff's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division. The New
York District Court did not rule on the Company's motion to
dismiss before transferring the case.
In November 2011, the Company's Board of Directors (Board)
received a letter from a purported shareholder demanding that the
Board investigate, address, remedy, and commence derivative
proceedings against certain officers and directors for their
alleged breach of fiduciary duty related to the Deepwater Horizon
events. The Board has considered this demand and in February 2012
determined that it would not be in the best interest of the
Company to pursue the issues alleged in the demand letter. In
March 2012, the Company's Board received a similar demand letter
from a purported shareholder supplementing an original demand that
had been made by the shareholder in September 2010 related to the
Deepwater Horizon events. The Board has considered this demand
and in April 2012 determined that it would not be in the best
interest of the Company to pursue the issues alleged in the demand
letter.
Given the early stages of the shareholder proceedings, the Company
currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or reasonably
estimate a range of any potential losses, related to ongoing
proceedings. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself, its
officers, and its directors in each of these proceedings, and will
avail itself of any and all indemnities provided by BP against
civil damages.
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Awaits Okay of Tronox-Related Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is awaiting court approval of a
tentative settlement hammered in April resolving a consolidated
class action lawsuit commenced by purchasers of equity and debt
securities of Tronox Incorporated, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
In July 2009, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in
the New York District Court on behalf of purported purchasers of
equity and debt securities of Tronox Incorporated (Tronox), a
former subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr-McGee), which is
a current subsidiary of Anadarko, between November 21, 2005, and
January 12, 2009, against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, several former
Kerr-McGee officers and directors, several former Tronox officers
and directors, and Ernst & Young LLP (Securities Case). The
complaint alleges causes of action arising under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for purported misstatements and
omissions regarding, among other things, Tronox's environmental-
remediation and tort-claim liabilities. The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that these purported misstatements and
omissions are contained in certain of Tronox's public filings,
including filings made in connection with Tronox's initial public
offering. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, including interest thereon, as well as
litigation fees and costs. Certain parties, including Anadarko,
Kerr-McGee, and the former Kerr-McGee officers and directors
reached a tentative settlement in this matter in April 2012,
subject to approval by the court. The tentative settlement amount
will be directly funded by the insurers for Tronox, Anadarko, and
Kerr-McGee. As a result, offsetting gains and losses have been
recorded to reflect the impact of the tentative settlement of the
Securities Case.
BERNIE MADOFF: Settles Fairfield Sentry Investors' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action settlement was recently reached between a group of
aggrieved investors, who lost money in the largest Bernie Madoff
feeder fund, Fairfield Sentry Limited Fund, and EFG Capital
International Corp. and EFG Bank. A large part of the $50 billion
invested in Madoff originated from investors in so-called feeder
funds. Class members invested in Fairfield Sentry through EFG
Capital, a Miami-based brokerage firm and member of the global EFG
Bank network.
Lawrence A. Kellogg and Jason Kellogg, partners at Miami-based
Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP, served as lead
counsel for the Class. Kevin M. Kinne -- kkinne@cohenkinne.com --
partner at Massachusetts-based Cohen Kinne Valicenti Cook LLP and
Daniel R. Solin of Bonita Springs, Florida, served as co-counsel.
Under the terms of the settlement approved by Judge Victor Marrero
of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York,
EFG Capital will pay approximately $7.8 million to the Class,
which consists of 279 Latin American investors who lost more than
$46 million after investing in Fairfield Sentry.
"We are extremely pleased with the settlement and the opportunity
to bring some relief to these victims," said Lawrence Kellogg,
lead counsel for the Class. "We faced a number of legal obstacles
and were able to secure a significant recovery for innocent
investors who may have otherwise never seen a dime. This is the
first group of Fairfield Sentry investors who lost money in the
Madoff scandal to receive compensation via litigation here in the
U.S. There are thousands of Madoff victims still waiting to
receive any kind of compensation for their losses after investing
in Fairfield Sentry."
According to the complaint -- which originally was filed in
January 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida before being swept into the multidistrict litigation in
New York against Fairfield Sentry's general partner, Fairfield
Greenwich Limited -- Fairfield Sentry was EFG Capital's largest
hedge fund offering, earning it millions of dollars in fees from
its customers as well as from Fairfield Sentry. The complaint
alleged EFG Capital and EFG Bank failed to conduct adequate due
diligence on Fairfield Sentry and Madoff, and failed to alert the
plaintiffs of certain red flags. The complaint further alleged
that EFG Capital failed to disclose the fees it was receiving from
Fairfield Sentry's owner, Fairfield Greenwich Group, in return for
investing the funds of the Class in Fairfield Sentry.
After reviewing more than 125,000 pages of documents produced by
EFG Capital, analyzing records and conducting numerous depositions
of EFG Capital's key officers, the plaintiffs' counsel compiled a
strong factual foundation for gross negligence supporting the
allegations that EFG Capital had knowledge of numerous red flags
implicating Fairfield Sentry and Madoff.
The settlement does not preclude Class members from getting
additional relief elsewhere.
"Class members may still recover money from other sources like
Fairfield through separate legal actions pending in New York and
the British Virgin Islands," added Jason Kellogg, co-lead counsel
for the Class. "We feel confident that this is just the first
recovery for our Class members."
BLOOMBERG LP: Call Center Workers File Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bloomberg LP stiffs its
"global technical support" (call center) workers for overtime, a
class action claims in Federal Court.
BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Alabama and its corporate parent conspired to fix prices and
allocate markets for individual and small-group health insurance,
an antitrust class action claims in Federal Court.
A copy of the Complaint in American Electric Motor Services, Inc.
v. Blue Cross and Blue Shielf of Alabama, et al., Case No. 12-cv-
02169 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/15/BlueCrossAnti.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
1401 Doug Baker Blvd., Ste. 107-121
Birmingham, AL 35242
Telephone: (205) 995-0068
E-mail: CMTLAW@aol.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Ellen M. Ahrens, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
650 Northstar East
608 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
eahrens@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
RODANAST, P.C.
801 Estelle Drive
Lancaster, PA 17601
Telephone: (717) 892-3000
E-mail: dnast@rodanast.com
BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Action Over Health Plan Closures
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Blue
Shield of California forces older, sicker policyholders into low-
benefit coverage with high deductibles, and excludes some from
coverage completely, customers claim in a federal class action.
Lead plaintiffs Robert Martin and Deborah Goodwin claim Blue
Shield has been manipulating California's "dual-regulator" health
insurance system by closing blocks of health plans under one
agency and opening up new ones under the other.
And, they say, the company uses "enormous" rate increases and
threats of increases to force "older, sicker" consumers into plans
with fewer benefits and higher deductibles.
Closing blocks of plans is called a "Death Spiral," a term for a
block no longer offered to new enrollees. It leaves older ones
with pre-existing health conditions with no alternatives but
transferring to a policy with fewer benefits and higher
deductibles.
"Consumers with pre-existing medical conditions cannot seek other
comparable coverage because they cannot pass 'medical
underwriting,' the process through which a health care service
plan or health insurer evaluates a consumer's insurance risk, and
on that basis, determines whether to sell coverage to that
individual," the complaint states.
"Thus, the closed plan, without new applicants, becomes a plan or
policy consisting largely of unhealthy and older members. Since
rates are set based on medical experience of a block of business,
rates in those closed blocks 'spiral' up over time. Eventually,
many enrollees are priced out of coverage and are frequently left
uninsured."
For example, the complaint states, Blue Shield announced an
anticipated 39.5 percent rate increase on eight health plans
closed in 2011, causing one enrollee to move his family to the
only other plan available to him. The increase never happened and
the enrollee sought to return to his old plan, but Blue Shield
wouldn't allow it.
Those who remained with that same plan, about 50,000 consumers,
eventually had to pay a 14 percent rate increase.
"The dwindling number of consumers affected by the 2011 rate
increase compared to the 2012 rate increase suggests that many
consumers succumbed to the Death Spiral and may now be uninsured
or underinsured if they were unable to obtain new coverage due to
pre-existing conditions," the complaint states.
The class claims Blue Shield is violating the Health & Safety Code
and the Insurance Code, which mandate that insurance companies
closing blocks of business provide consumers a fair calculation of
premium rates by pooling the closed blocks with an appropriate
number of open blocks or transferring them to a plan with
comparable benefits.
The class also claims Blue Shield does not warn consumers before
it closes health plans, and fails to offer information on how they
can obtain comparable coverage.
Enrollees claim the insurance company's conduct is "unlawful,
unfair and fraudulent," violating the California Business &
Professions Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
"Blue Shield's conduct also breaches uniform express or implied
contractual provisions between Blue Shield and plaintiffs and
class members and the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing," the complaint states.
The class seeks restitution, disgorgement and an injunction.
A copy of the Complaint in Martin, et al. v. California
Physicians' Service, d/b/a Blue Shield of California, et al., Case
No. CGC-12-521539 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/15/BlueCross.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
Pamela Pressley, Esq.
Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
1750 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
E-mail: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org
jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
- and -
Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS LLC
380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 447-7060
E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS LLC
580 California Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 860-2503
E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com
BP PLC: More Than 50,000 Texas Residents Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that more than 50,000 Texas City
residents have joined a class-action suit against BP PLC, alleging
they got sick in 2010 from a 41-day emissions release from a
refinery that was the scene of a deadly explosion.
Texas has also sued BP over the release, which occurred as the
British oil giant was battling the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico
spill. The Environmental Protection Agency is also investigating.
The Galveston Daily News reports residents say they became ill
from the release. Texas says BP emitted 500,000 pounds of
chemicals, including carbon monoxide and benzene, during April and
May in 2010.
BP contends air monitors near and surrounding the refinery
registered no elevated readings during April and May 2010 and that
no one was harmed by flaring at its Texas City refinery.
BRF-BRASIL FOODS: Settled Suit vs. Unit for $27-Mil. In 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRF - Brasil Foods S.A. settled in December 2011 a class action
lawsuit against its subsidiary for $27 million, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.
The Company subsidiary, Sadia S.A., and some of its current and
former executives were named as defendants in five class action
lawsuits arising from investors of American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") issued by Sadia and acquired in the period from
April 30, 2008, to September 26, 2008 (Class Period). These
claims were filed in the Southern District of New York federal
court in the United States of America, seeking remediation in
accordance with U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from
losses on foreign exchange derivative contracts entered during the
Class Period. By order of the U.S. court, the five class actions
lawsuits were consolidated into a single case (Class Action) on
behalf of the Sadia's investors group. During the second semester
of 2011, the Company reached a final agreement with the plaintiffs
homologated by the U.S. judicial authority and as a consequence
settled the case with a payment of US$27.0 million.
The Company says its recorded provision was superior to the amount
of the settlement; therefore, a reversal in the amount of R$118.7
million was recorded in the other operating income. The Company
understands that the likelihood of having new lawsuits related to
this Class Action is remote.
CAMERON INT'L: Awaits OK of Deepwater Horizon Suit Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron International Corporation is awaiting court approval of
settlements resolving class action lawsuits arising from the 2010
Deepwater Horizon incident, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
A blowout preventer ("BOP") originally manufactured by the Company
and delivered in 2001, and for which the Company was one of the
suppliers of spare parts and repair services, was deployed by the
drilling rig Deepwater Horizon in 2010 when the rig experienced an
explosion and fire resulting in bodily injuries and loss of life,
the loss of the rig, and an unprecedented discharge of
hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico.
The Company was named as one of a number of defendants in over 350
lawsuits asserting claims for personal injury, wrongful death,
property damage, pollution and economic damages. Most of these
lawsuits were consolidated into a single proceeding before a
single Federal judge under rules governing multi-district
litigation. The consolidated case is styled: In Re: Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig "Deep Water Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico on
April 20, 2010, MDL Docket No. 2179.
On December 15, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with
BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BPXP), guaranteed by BP
Corporation North America Inc., pursuant to which BPXP agreed to
indemnify the Company for any and all current and future
compensatory claims, and to pay on behalf of the Company any and
all such claims, associated with or arising out of the Deepwater
Horizon incident the Company otherwise would have been obligated
to pay, including claims arising under the Oil Pollution Act,
claims for natural resource damages and associated damage-
assessment costs, and other claims arising from third parties.
The agreement does not provide indemnification of the Company
against any fines, penalties, punitive damages or certain other
potential non-compensatory claims levied on or awarded against it
individually. The Company does not consider any of these, singly
or cumulatively, to pose a material financial risk to it because
while the United States brought a lawsuit against BP and certain
other parties associated with this incident for recovery under
statutes such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the Clean
Water Act the Company was not named as a defendant in this
lawsuit. Additionally, BP and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
("PSC"), appointed by the Court in the MDL proceeding to represent
the interests of third-party claimants, concluded an "Economic and
Property Damages Settlement Agreement" and a "Medical Benefits
Class Action Settlement Agreement" which were filed with the Court
on April 18, 2012. Under the terms of these settlements, the PSC,
on behalf of these claimants who would be included in the proposed
settling classes, has released any claim against BP and certain
other parties, including the Company, for punitive and other non-
compensatory damages. This settlement has yet to be approved by
the Court. The proposed settlement, and the release of punitive
and other non-compensatory damages against Cameron, will not
affect the claims of (i) persons who opt out of the settlement;
(ii) persons outside the geographic scope of the settlement, which
include Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and certain counties in
Florida and Texas; (iii) persons outside the class of lost
business covered by the settlement class such as gambling, real
estate development and insurance; and (iv) the Gulf states and
local government entities.
Cameron International Corporation's operations are organized into
three separate business segments, namely: Drilling & Production
Systems (DPS), Valves & Measurement (V&M) and Process &
Compression Systems (PCS).
CANADIAN HONKER: Faces Overtime Class Action in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a former waitress is suing a
Rochester restaurant, claiming its tip pool was a violation of
Minnesota law.
According to a class-action lawsuit in Olmsted County, Natasha
Foss was fired for insubordination at the Canadian Honker
restaurant. The complaint says it was after she contributed less
than the required 2 percent of her total sales to the tip pool on
March 7 and March 8.
The complaint says Ms. Foss started putting less than 2 percent in
the tip jar after learning that the Canadian Honker's tip jar
practices might be illegal.
Ms. Foss' attorney Steven Smith says the precise number of people
who could join the lawsuit is unknown, but it exceeds 30 people.
Restaurant manager Nick Powers tells the Post-Bulletin he's
confident the situation will end in their favor.
CAPITOL RECORDS: Sued by Tavares Over Digital Music Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Vierra Tavares, Arthur Paul Tavares, Feliciano Vierra
Tavares, Antone Lawrence Tavares, and Perry Lee Tavares,
individually and jointly p/k/a "Tavares," on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Capitol Records, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company f/k/a Capitol Records, Inc.;
EMI Group Limited, a private limited company registered in England
and Wales; EMI Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation; EMI RM US,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; and EMI Music North America, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:12-cv-03059 (N.D.
Calif., June 14, 2012) is brought as a nationwide class action
lawsuit for breach of contract, declaratory judgment and
violations of California statutory law prohibiting unlawful,
unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices.
The class action is predicated on the deliberate, systematic and
ongoing failure of Capitol, the other EMI Defendants, and their
record label subsidiaries or affiliates to properly calculate,
account for and pay or credit royalties due and owing to musical
recording artists, producers, and other royalty participants,
including the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, in
connection with licenses of master recordings of musical
performances made or produced by the Plaintiffs and delivered to
Capitol or other EMI entities for use in the manufacture of
records in digital formats. The Plaintiffs allege that Capitol
and the other EMI Defendants have deliberately adopted and
implemented a policy of improperly calculating, accounting for and
underpaying royalties due and owing to Plaintiffs and the other
members of the Class.
The Plaintiffs are musicians and former recording artists and
performing artists. They formed and did business as the musical
group professionally known as "Tavares." Ralph Tavares retired
from performing in 1984, and is no longer an active performing
member of Tavares. Because Ralph was a performing member of
Tavares at the time of 1973 contract and 1976 contract, and is a
party to both contracts, he was and remains entitled to receive
royalties pursuant to the contracts in connection with the
commercial exploitation of Capitol and EMI entities that Tavares
recorded for Capitol. The other Plaintiffs continue to actively
engage in public performances, doing business as Tavares.
Capitol is a direct or indirect subsidiary or affiliate of each of
the other EMI Defendants. EMI Group Ltd., EMI Group Inc., EMI RM
and EMI Music owned and distributed record labels. EMI acquires
and commercially exploits recorded music through its affiliated
and subsidiary record labels. EMI manufactures, distributes,
licenses and sells phonorecords in the form of CDs, cassettes and
other tangible media.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-4949
Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
- and -
Thomas S. McNamara, Esq.
INDIK & MCNAMARA, P.C.
100 South Broad Street, Suite 2230
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Telephone: (215) 567-7125
Facsimile: (215) 563-8330
E-mail: mcnamara@snip.net
CASH AMERICA: Appeal in "Strong" Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc.'s appeal from an order granting a
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment in the class
action lawsuit initiated by James E. Strong remains pending,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, against
Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc.
(together with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel
R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
"stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many
different causes of action, among the most significant of which is
that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in
violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act
and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"). First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota ("FNB")
and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota ("CSB") for some
time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's
Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims
that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans
made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB's involvement in
the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the
lawsuit alleges that Cash America was the "de facto" lender and
was illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive
damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. In November
2009 the case was certified as a class action lawsuit. In August
2011, Cash America filed a motion for summary judgment, and in
October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial
summary judgment. Hearings on the motions were held in October
and November 2011, and the trial court entered an order granting
summary judgment in favor of Cash America on one of plaintiff's
claims, denying the remainder of Cash America's motion and
granting plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
Cash America filed a notice of appeal in December 2011 on the
grant of plaintiff's partial summary judgment, which is pending
before the Georgia Court of Appeals.
The Company says it is currently unable to estimate a range of
reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20,
Contingencies - Loss Contingencies - Glossary ("ASC 450-20-20"),
for this litigation. Cash America believes that the Plaintiffs'
claims in this lawsuit are without merit and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.
CASH AMERICA: Bid to Reconsider Ruling in "Alfeche" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in the class action lawsuit
commenced by Peter Alfeche and Kim Saunders, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche and Kim Saunders, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc.,
Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC ("CashNet Nevada"), Cash America
Net of Pennsylvania, LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a
CashNetUSA.com (collectively, "CashNetUSA"). The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that CashNetUSA's online consumer loan
activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and in violation of
various Pennsylvania laws, including the Loan Interest Protection
Law, the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act (the "CDCA")
and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws. The
lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of
CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including the class action
waiver and the choice of law and arbitration provisions, are not
enforceable under Pennsylvania law and that CashNetUSA's loan
contracts are void and unenforceable. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages (including the trebling of certain damages),
punitive damages and attorney's fees. CashNetUSA filed a motion
to enforce the arbitration provision, including its class action
waiver, located in the agreements governing the lending
activities. In August 2011, the U.S. District Court ruled that
the arbitration provision, which includes the class action waiver,
was valid and enforceable and granted the motion to compel
arbitration and stayed the litigation. In August 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which the court denied,
and in September 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification for interlocutory appeal, which was denied in
November 2011.
On February 24, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's decision, and the court has not yet
ruled on this motion.
Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate
liability, if any, with respect to this matter can be determined
at this time, and the Company is currently unable to estimate a
range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20,
for this litigation. The Company believes that the plaintiffs'
claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.
CEMEX SAB: Settles Two Consolidated Florida Suits for $460,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. settled for $460,000 two consolidated class
action lawsuits in March 2012, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.
In October 2009, CEMEX Corp. and other cement and concrete
suppliers were named as defendants in several purported class
action lawsuits alleging price-fixing in Florida. The purported
class action lawsuits are of two distinct types: The first type
was filed by entities purporting to have purchased cement or
ready-mix concrete directly from one or more of the defendants.
The second group of plaintiffs is made up of entities purporting
to have purchased cement or ready-mix concrete indirectly from one
or more of the defendants. Underlying all proposed lawsuits is
the allegation that the defendants conspired to raise the price of
cement and concrete and hinder competition in Florida. On January
7, 2010, both groups of plaintiffs independently filed
consolidated amended complaints substituting CEMEX, Inc. and some
of its subsidiaries for the original defendant, CEMEX Corp. The
corresponding CEMEX subsidiaries in the U.S. and the other
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints.
On October 12, 2010, the court granted in part the defendants'
motion, dismissing from the case all claims relating to cement and
reducing the applicable time period of the plaintiffs' claims. On
October 29, 2010, the plaintiffs filed further amended complaints
pursuant to the court's decision. On
December 2, 2010, the corresponding CEMEX subsidiaries in the U.S.
moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs based on lack of standing. The corresponding
CEMEX subsidiaries in the United States also answered the
complaint filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. On January 4,
2011, both the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
further amended complaints, which the corresponding CEMEX
subsidiaries in the United States answered on January 18, 2011.
In March 2011, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
motions for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b), seeking the entry of final judgment pursuant to the court's
October 12, 2010 order so they may appeal the dismissals to the
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The court denied those
motions on April 15, 2011.
On September 21, 2011, both groups of plaintiffs filed motions for
class certification. On January 3, 2012, the court denied both
motions, ruling that the cases cannot proceed as class actions.
On January 5, 2012, the court stayed both cases pending the
resolution of any potential appeal of the court's ruling denying
the motions for class certification. On January 17, 2012, the
plaintiffs in the action involving entities that purchased ready-
mix concrete directly from one or more of the defendants filed a
petition with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting
that the Eleventh Circuit exercise its discretion to immediately
review the trial court's decision denying their class
certification motion.
In early March 2012, the corresponding CEMEX subsidiaries in the
United States and the other remaining defendants effected a
settlement of both cases resulting in the Company having to pay
approximately $460,000. The corresponding CEMEX subsidiaries in
the United States did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the
settlements and deny allegations of misconduct.
CHEMED CORP: Appeal in Suit v. Unit Remains Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
VITAS Healthcare Corporation, a subsidiary of Chemed Corporation,
is party to a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, in September 2006 by Bernadette
Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White. This case alleges failure
to pay overtime and failure to provide meal and rest periods to a
purported class of California admissions nurses, chaplains and
sales representatives. The case seeks payment of penalties,
interest and Plaintiffs' attorney fees. The Company contests
these allegations. In December 2009, the trial court denied
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In July 2011, the
Court of Appeals affirmed denial of class certification on the
travel time, meal and rest period claims, and reversed the trial
court's denial on the off-the-clock and sales representation
exemption claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this
decision. The Company says it is unable to estimate its potential
liability or potential range of loss, if any, with respect to this
case.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit
initiated in Minnesota against its subsidiary, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
On November 14, 2011, Luann and Michael Cosgrove and Dawn Mills
filed a class action lawsuit against Roto-Rooter Group, Inc. in
Minnesota state district court for the 4th Judicial District
alleging unnecessary excavation work in Minnesota. The Company
removed the case to federal court. Plaintiffs seek damages,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and interest. The Company
contests these allegations. This lawsuit is in its early stage
and the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if
any, with respect to these allegations.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
CHEMED CORP: Defends Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit
commenced by the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.
On January 12, 2012, the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension
Fund filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the
Company, Kevin McNamara, David Williams, and Tim O'Toole. It
alleges violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and violation of
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
individual defendants. The lawsuit, Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund v. Chemed Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
1:12-cv-28 (S.D. Ohio), concerns the VITAS hospice segment of the
Company's business. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Chemed Capital Stock between February 15,
2010, and November 16, 2011, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and expenses, arising from
defendants' failure to disclose an alleged fraudulent scheme to
enroll ineligible hospice patients and to fraudulently obtain
payments from the federal government. Defendants believe the
allegations are without merit, and intend to defend vigorously
against them.
No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.
CHEMED CORP: Unpaid Wages Suit Remains Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
On March 1, 2010, Anthony Morangelli and Frank Ercole filed a
class action lawsuit in federal district court for the Eastern
District of New York seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime
service technician compensation from Chemed Corporation and its
subsidiary, Roto-Rooter Group, Inc. They also seek payment of
penalties, interest and plaintiffs' attorney fees. The Company
contests these allegations. In September 2010, the Court
conditionally certified a nationwide class of service technicians,
excluding those who signed dispute resolution agreements in which
they agreed to arbitrate claims arising out of their employment.
The Company says it is unable to estimate its potential liability,
if any, with respect to this case.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
July 25, 2012 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit
the firm filed on behalf of securities purchasers of ChinaCast
Education Corporation between February 14, 2011 and April 2, 2012.
To join the ChinaCast class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at
866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.
The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against ChinaCast and its present and former officers and
directors for issuing false and misleading information to
investors about the Company's true financial and business
condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges ChinaCast issued
materially false and misleading financial statements during the
Class Period because undisclosed material weaknesses in the
Company's internal controls and the alleged wrongful transfer of
$120 million in cash by CEO Chan from bank accounts of ChinaCast's
subsidiaries.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 25, 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 Web site 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.
CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
szhang@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com
CONSOL ENERGY: "Addison" Class Suit Still Stayed in Virginia Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010, in
Federal court in Virginia against a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy
Inc., styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company LLC. The case involves
two primary claims: (i) the plaintiff and similarly situated CNX
Gas lessors identified as conflicting claimants during the force
pooling process before the Virginia Gas and Oil Board are the
owners of the coalbed methane (CBM) and, accordingly, the owners
of the escrowed royalty payments being held by the Commonwealth of
Virginia; and (ii) CNX Gas Company failed to either pay royalties
due these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them less than
required because of the alleged practice of improper below market
sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment regarding ownership and
compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract;
conversion; negligence (voluntary undertaking), for force pooling
coal owners after the Ratliff decision declared coal owners did
not own the CBM; negligent breach of duties as an operator; breach
of fiduciary duties; and unjust enrichment. The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss in this case, and the Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissing some claims and allowing others to proceed.
The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations
in their entirety. The plaintiffs and CNX Gas Company have agreed
to stay this litigation.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously. The Company has established an accrual
to cover its estimated liability for this case. This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.
CONSOL ENERGY: Trial in CNX Gas Acquisition-Related Suit in 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012, that the consolidated lawsuit over
its acquisition of a subsidiary will likely go to trial in 2013.
CONSOL Energy has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas Corporation
challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of
the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not
already own for $38.25 per share. The two cases filed in
Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court have been stayed and the three
cases filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated
under the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No.
5377-VCL). All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy
breached and/or aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary
duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders,
essentially alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL
Energy paid to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and
subsequent short-form merger was unfair. Among other things, the
actions sought a permanent injunction against or rescission of the
tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses. The
lawsuit will likely go to trial, possibly in 2013.
CONSOL Energy believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously. For that reason, the Company
has not accrued a liability for this claim; however, if liability
is ultimately imposed, based on the expert reports that have been
exchanged by the parties, the Company believes the range of loss
could be up to $221,000.
CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Suit vs. Unit Still Stayed in Virginia Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010,
against a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc. in U.S. District Court
in Abingdon, Virginia, styled Hale v. CNX Gas Company LLC et. al.
The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff class consists of oil and
gas owners, that the Virginia Supreme Court has decided that
coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the owner of the oil and gas
estate, that the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990
unconstitutionally allows force pooling of CBM, that the Act
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 royalty to CBM owners for
gas produced under the force pooling orders, and that the Company
only relied upon control of the coal estate in force pooling the
CBM notwithstanding the Virginia Supreme Court decision holding
that if only the coal estate is controlled, the CBM is not thereby
controlled. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership
of the CBM and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production
(that is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since
production began) be distributed to the class members. The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
recommended that the District Judge decide that the deemed lease
provision of the Gas and Oil Act is constitutional as is the 1/8
royalty, and that CNX Gas need not distribute the net proceeds to
class members. The Magistrate Judge recommended against the
dismissal of certain other claims, none of which are believed to
have any significance. The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's Recommendations in their entirety. The plaintiffs and CNX
Gas have agreed to stay this litigation.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously. The Company has established an accrual
to cover its estimated liability for this case. This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.
CONSOL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of New "Comer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the new class action lawsuit
commenced by Ned Comer, CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its
April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy
styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al. The plaintiffs,
residents and owners of property along the Mississippi Gulf coast,
alleged that the defendants caused the emission of greenhouse
gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn caused a
rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina,
which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' property. The District
Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed. The Circuit
Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a rehearing before
the entire court. A rehearing before the entire court was
granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's reversal,
but before the case could be heard on the merits, a number of
judges recused themselves and there was no longer a quorum. As a
result, the District Court's dismissal was effectively reinstated.
The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to require the Circuit
Court to address the merits of their appeal. On January 11, 2011,
the Supreme Court denied that request. Although that should have
resulted in the dismissal being final, the plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the same jurisdiction against
essentially the same defendants making nearly identical
allegations as in the original lawsuit. The trial court has
dismissed this case. The dismissal is being appealed.
CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends "Hall" Class Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010
styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania
Common Pleas Court. The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall. The
purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy Inc. The complaint alleges
more than 1,000 similarly situated lessors. The lawsuit alleges
that CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated royalties by (i)
calculating line loss on the basis of allocated volumes rather
than on a well-by-well basis, (ii) possibly calculating the
royalty on the basis of an incorrect price, (iii) possibly taking
unreasonable deductions for post-production costs and costs that
were not arms-length, (iv) not paying royalties on gas lost or
used before the point of sale, and (v) not paying royalties on oil
production. The complaint also alleges that royalty statements
were false and misleading. The complaint seeks damages, interest
and an accounting on a well-by-well basis.
No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.
CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously. Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to these actions.
EXETER HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis C Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Sanborn, writing for Seacostonline.com, reports that a
former federal prosecutor is seeking to file a class-action
lawsuit against Exeter Hospital over the facility's hepatitis C
outbreak.
In class-action lawsuits, plaintiffs allow their attorneys to
pursue a case for themselves and others against the same defendant
or defendants, in this case the hospital.
Peter McGrath of the McGrath Law Firm in Concord filed a request
for class-action certification at Rockingham Superior Court.
Currently, Mr. McGrath is representing only one client, "John
Doe," but said, if he is granted class-action certification, he
will reach out to additional hepatitis C-infected patients,
including those who have already filed lawsuits.
"We have several others (victims) we're talking with that aren't
named plaintiffs yet," he said. "What some people don't realize
is that class-action lawsuits are better for the clients. They
save money and time and share combined resources."
According to John Doe's complaint, he was administered a number of
intravenous medical procedures at Exeter Hospital's cardiac
catheterization laboratory in August 2011 and was called in for
testing earlier this month after the hospital's outbreak was
announced. It was then that he found out he was infected with the
disease.
"Plaintiff has been informed that the medical treatment
professionals would like him to begin a regimen of complicated and
expensive pharmaceutical treatment," the complaint states.
The complaint alleges negligence on the part of the hospital.
"I don't see this as an overly complicated case," McGrath said.
"This is pretty straightforward; I think it would be a short
trial."
Mr. McGrath said attorneys in New Hampshire typically work well
together, adding he could get others to join the suit. "This is
the first step," he said.
Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that several Exeter
Hospital patients expressed worry and frustration during a special
meeting prompted by a hepatitis C outbreak at the New Hampshire
facility.
The public meeting was the held by the state at Exeter High School
on June 15. The Portsmouth Herald says hospital patients
complained about having to be re-tested for hepatitis C because
the hospital sent the state expired blood samples.
Nineteen patients connected to the hospital's cardiac
catheterization lab have been diagnosed with hepatitis C, and a
hospital worker has also tested positive for the disease.
Meanwhile, Kevin Callahan, the president of the Exeter Hospital's
parent company, says the chief concern is caring for those
impacted by the outbreak and not the lawsuits it faces. Mr.
Callahan says the hospital is "deeply disturbed" by the events and
"deeply apologetic."
FIREMEN'S ANNUITY: Sued Over Miscalculation of Salary Increases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hooker, as Special Representative/Heir to Elaine Hooker,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Chicago, Case No. 2012-CH-21995 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June
14, 2012) alleges that the Board's systemic miscalculation deprive
the Plaintiff and similarly situated heirs of retroactive salary
increases from January 1, 2007, to June 30, 2012, as provided for
in the new City of Chicago labor contract.
Elaine Hooker, who died in September 2010, is the widow of Michael
Hooker, who died in December 2000. Michael Hooker was employed by
the Chicago Fire Department from 1967 to 1989, when he was granted
a duty disability benefit from the Board pursuant to Section 6-151
of the Illinois Pension Code. In April 2011, the Board informed
an heir of Elaine Hooker that a new labor contract between the
City of Chicago and the Chicago Firefighters Union Local 2
ratified new pay increases with application for widow's benefits.
Elaine Hooker's heirs informed the Board that the retroactive
salary increase benefits are due and payable.
According to the lawsuit, on November 22, 2011, the Board, without
hearing or notice, made an administrative decision that decided
that the occurrence of Elaine Hooker's death in September 2010,
before contract ratification, abates or otherwise extinguishes an
heir's pension entitlement. The Plaintiff contends that the
Board's denial of benefits is illegal, a violation of due process
and fair hearing and contrary to statutes.
Daniel Hooker is a resident of Cook County, Illinois, and heir to
his mother, Elaine Hooker.
The Board is an entity that administers benefits to the widows of
Chicago firefighters under the Illinois Pension Code.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin O. Holland, Esq.
9109 S. Sawyer
Evergreen Park, IL 60805
Telephone: (312) 497-0909
GOOGLE: Appeals Class Certification Order in Authors' Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that
Google officials have confirmed that their attorneys on June 15
filed a petition to appeal Judge Denny Chin's recent order
granting the Authors Guild's motion for class certification in
their ongoing litigation. The appeal was filed with the U.S.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals -- notably, the court Judge Denny
Chin now sits on. While details of the appeal filing were not
immediately available, the appeal process could delay the motions
for summary judgment, due June 26, and ultimately the trial date,
set for early September, while the appeal process plays out.
While the appeal documents were not yet available at press time,
Google had previously argued that the case should not be certified
as a class action largely because "individual issues predominate
over common ones as to copyright ownership and fair use." In his
recent ruling, however, Judge Chin rejected that argument. "Class
action is the superior method for resolving this litigation,"
Judge Chin wrote, concluding that, "every potential class member's
claim arises out of Google's uniform, widespread practice of
copying entire books without permission of the copyright holder
and displaying snippets of those books for search." Because
Google "treated the copyright holders as a group," he found,
"copyright holders should be able to litigate on a group basis."
The appeal sets up yet another interesting twist in the long-
running case, as Judge Chin's colleagues on the Second Circuit are
now in a position to potentially strike down his recent decision.
Judge Chin was promoted to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in
April, 2010, but he kept the Google case, sitting by designation
with the district court.
HALLIBURTON CO: Judge Declines to Reconsider RCRA Claim
-------------------------------------------------------
Lana Birbrair, writing for Law360, reports that an Oklahoma
federal judge on June 14 declined to reconsider an April decision
that trimmed a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act claim
against Halliburton Co. from a putative class action alleging the
company exposed a town's residents to nuclear waste and other
harmful substances.
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange determined that the
decision finding that the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality should maintain primary jurisdiction over the issues in
the claim was not "manifest injustice," as the plaintiffs had
claimed.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. has filed a securities class action
lawsuit on June 15, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System
("Lampers"), and all other similarly-situated purchasers of
JPMorgan Chase & Co. common stock between February 24, 2010 and
May 10, 2012, inclusive. This Complaint extends the class period
prior to the April 13, 2012 start date alleged in the initial
class action complaint filed against JP Morgan on May 14, 2012,
styled as Smith v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 12-cv-
3852 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.). The deadline for class members to move to
serve as lead plaintiff is July 13, 2012.
The action alleges that JPMorgan and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by misrepresenting
the high-risk trading activities conducted by the Company's Chief
Investment Office (the "CIO"), and otherwise concealing JP
Morgan's and the CIO's exposure to risk. The truth about the
CIO's speculative trading activities was revealed on May 10, 2012,
following the close of the markets, when the Company filed its
Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2012, and held a conference
call with stock analysts in which JP Morgan disclosed that the
CIO's investments had generated over $2 billion in losses. In
response, JPMorgan's stock dropped precipitously (9.3%), on
extraordinarily-high trading volume, wiping $14.4 billion off the
Company's market value.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
JPMorgan common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is
represented by Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., which has extensive
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions involving
financial fraud.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may, no
later than July 13, 2012, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class. However, your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may
move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive
class member.
Grant & Eisenhofer represents institutional investors and
shareholders internationally in securities class actions,
corporate governance actions and derivative actions.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice, please contact:
Geoffrey Jarvis, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: 302-622-7040
E-mail: gjarvis@gelaw.com
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. on behalf
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of the Company during the period from September 26, 2007 through
June 8, 2012.
For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.) toll-free
at (877) 316-3218 or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or
visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mlnk
The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. ModusLink provides supply chain management
services and solutions. On June 11, 2012, the Company announced
that it would need to restate financial results going back to 2007
and that its Audit Committee investigation found that certain
client contracts were consistently misaligned with the Company's
practice of retaining volume discounts. Additionally, the
Committee found instances where vendor costs incurred were marked
up to clients inconsistent with contracts.
Concurrently with these stunning announcements, the Company also
disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission had launched
an inquiry into these matters, and that ModusLink's President and
Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Joseph C. Lawler, was
immediately resigning from his positions with ModusLink and the
Company's Board of Directors. In addition, the Company also
announced the immediate departure of William R. McLennan,
President, Global Operations for ModusLink.
In reaction to the Company's announcements, ModusLink's stock
price plunged 34.74% to close at $2.78 on June 11, 2012.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than August
11, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.
For more information about the case or to participate online,
please visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mlnkor contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by
E-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com--
is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and
federal courts nationwide.
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Judge Tosses Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Valigra, writing for Mass High Tech, reports that Novelos
Therapeutics Inc. of Newton and Madison, Wis., said it has closed
on a $5.42 million public offering and that a judge has dismissed
with prejudice a federal securities fraud class action lawsuit
against the company.
The developer of cancer treatments and diagnostics closed on an
offering of 5,420,800 units at $1 per unit. The company said in
an S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that it will use the proceeds to fund research and development
activities, including the further development of its LIGHT and HOT
compounds in a wide range of cancers, and for general corporate
purposes, such as general and administrative expenses, capital
expenditures, working capital, prosecution and maintenance of its
intellectual property, and the potential investment in
technologies or products that complement its business.
Separately, the company said that on June 11, 2012, Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton dismissed a second amended complaint in a
putative federal securities fraud class action brought in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts originally in
March 2010 entitled Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald v. Novelos
Therapeutics Inc. and Harry S. Palmin (Civil Action No. 10-10394-
NMG).
In the case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the progress of the Phase 3 clinical trial before the United
States Food and Drug Administration of Novelos' oxidized
glutathione compound, NOV-002, in application to non-small cell
lung cancer, according to a press release.
On February 24, 2010, Novelos announced that the Phase 3 trial had
concluded unsuccessfully, and the price per share of Novelos'
common stock dropped by approximately 80 percent from its close on
the prior day.
A first amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice by Judge
Gorton on June 23, 2011. The second amended complaint was filed
on August 5, 2011. In dismissing the second amended complaint,
Judge Gorton concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege
sufficient facts to permit an inference of scienter and failed to
allege loss causation adequately. Novelos and Palmin were
defended by Foley Hoag LLP.
In March 2010, Novelos said it would end development of drug
candidate NOV-002 as an adjunct to current lung cancer
chemotherapy drugs, but did say it would go forward with trials in
breast cancer for the compound. However, NOV-002 has since been
discontinued, J. Patrick Genn, vice president of investor
relations, told Mass High Tech.
"No development work is being done on NOV-002 at all," he said.
"Our current focus is on the technology platform from our merger
with Cellectar Inc."
NUTREX RESEARCH: Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that the maker
of diet supplements must face class-action claims that its product
contains a powerful stimulant banned in professional sports, a
federal magistrate ruled.
In a March complaint, Stephen Rush said Nutrex Research and its
founders violated California's fair business laws by marketing the
supplements as safe muscle builders despite alleged knowledge that
the products were both ineffective and dangerous because of the
use of the chemical stimulant DMAA.
Several countries and Major League Baseball have banned DMAA or
geranamine, which is growing in popularity among young people as a
designer "party pill."
Mr. Rush and his girlfriend bought two of Nutrex's products --
Hemo Black Rage Ultra Concentrate and Lipo 6 Black Hers Ultra
Concentrate -- and used them for a month and a half. The couple
said they felt jittery, had feelings of anxiety and a racing
pulse, and felt exhausted if they did not use the products.
Mr. Rush, who represents the class of Nutrex users, says he was
unaware that the products contained DMAA and equally unaware that
DMAA can cause stroke or death.
In refusing to dismiss the class action on June 13, U.S.
Magistrate Laurel Beeler pointed out that Nutrex failed to
directly address any of Mr. Rush's claims, "which is the ordinary
way of challenging claims in a complaint."
"If Nutrex has not challenged all theories supporting Rush's
claims, then the claims survive and the court does not need to
address Nutrex's arguments on the merits," Judge Beeler wrote.
"The court's analysis here is sufficient," she added. "Nutrex's
motion to dismiss fails because it does not challenge all theories
supporting Rush's claims. Thus, the court need not address
Nutrex's theory-based (or sometimes fact-based) challenges."
"Rush represented specifically in his complaint that he was not
suing under the FDCA or doing anything other than availing himself
of consumer protections available under California law," according
to the decision, abbreviating the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. "In
its motion, Nutrex either sets up narrow challenges . . . or
argues legal concepts like preemption and primary jurisdiction on
a very high level with modest analysis."
"At oral argument, the court made these observations and asked
whether -- given Nutrex's challenge only to some allegations, and
not to all cognizable theories underlying the claims -- Nutrex's
motion was intended to educate the court about legal issues that
might arise," Judge Beeler added. "Nutrex did not really dispute
this characterization. In any event, the court concludes that
Nutrex did not attack the 'false advertising/deceptive practices'
theory that supports all claims. Thus, its motion to dismiss
fails."
A copy of the Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Rush
v. Nutrex Research, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01060 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/15/nutrex.pdf
QIAO XING: Rosen Law Firm Files Amended Class Action Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on June 15 disclosed that it has filed an
amended complaint expanding the class action lawsuit the firm
filed to include those investors who purchased the securities of
Qiao Xing Universal Resources, Inc. securities between August 23,
2010 and April 16, 2012.
If you purchased Qiao Xing securities during the Class Period you
can join the Qiao Xing class action by visiting the firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-
free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm also reminds investors of the important
June 26, 2012 deadline for investors to seek lead plaintiff
status. 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 Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com
CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
szhang@rosenlegal.com
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com
RIDGEWOOD WATER: Implements Water Rate Hike Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darius Amos, writing for The Ridgewood News, reports that in the
midst of a class-action lawsuit filed against Ridgewood and its
water department, members of Ridgewood's governing body on June 13
authorized a 2 percent water rate increase for its customers,
boosting the total hike for this year to 5 percent.
With the Village Council's unanimous approval after eight public
hearings, Ridgewood Water will now bill its customers in the
village, Glen Rock, Midland Park and Wyckoff at a rate of $4.42
per 1,000 gallons. That figure is up from the $4.33 per 1,000
gallons assessed since January 2012.
The new rate will go into effect "as rapidly as the billing
company can process, anticipate within two weeks," according to
Village Manager Ken Gabbert.
In spite of the rising costs to the consumer, Ridgewood officials
maintain that the village utility's rates are comparable and even
cheaper than charges assessed by other water companies.
Using a chart to compare the prices of nine local water utilities,
Mr. Gabbert said only Park Ridge and Hawthorne charge its
customers at a rate less than Ridgewood. The operations in those
towns are far smaller than Ridgewood's distribution, Mr. Gabbert
added.
In comparison, the Ramsey Water Company charges borough residents
$4.95 per 1,000 gallons for consumption more than 6,000 gallons.
Ramsey also provides service to Allendale, Mahwah and Upper Saddle
River, charging residents in those towns $5.45 per 1,000 gallons
for any use exceeding 6,000 gallons.
Harrington Park-based United Water, one of the largest water
service providers in the country, charges its customers $5.30 per
1,000 gallons, according to the comparison chart provided by
village officials.
"Despite the increase, Ridgewood Water rates remain among the
lowest in the state," Councilman Paul Aronsohn said.
Over the past three years, Ridgewood Water has raised its rates
for customers a total of 31 percent. The increases between 2009
and 2011 are the basis of the class-action lawsuit filed last year
by Hackensack-based attorney Joseph Fiorenzo on behalf of Glen
Rock, Midland Park and Wyckoff residents.
It was unclear last week whether the latest increase would impact
the current litigation, but Mr. Gabbert said the plaintiffs can
always amend the lawsuit.
Mr. Fiorenzo was not immediately available to comment on the
increase or the lawsuit.
At a press conference last month, Mr. Fiorenzo claimed that the
water utility's rate increases have been unjustified and alleged
that "Ridgewood has been bilking the ratepayers of Wyckoff, Glen
Rock and Midland Park by having the ratepayers pay for a
substantial portion of the operating expenses of the Village of
Ridgewood."
"In effect, [those municipalities], have been subsidizing the
Village of Ridgewood operating budget so that, during periods of
economic difficulty, Ridgewood does not have to make the tough
choices that all other communities make by reducing expenditures,"
Mr. Fiorenzo said.
Mr. Fiorenzo is suing for the $3.3 million that he claimed
Ridgewood Water overcharged customers in the three towns and a
reversal of the village ordinances that approved the rate
increases.
Village Attorney Matt Rogers responded by saying Mr. Fiorenzo made
"outrageous claims," and that Ridgewood will "continue the good
faith and responsible effort we have made over the years to
maintain the low rates charged by the Water Utility to the rate
payers of Ridgewood, Glen Rock, Midland Park and Wyckoff."
As for Ridgewood's defense in the lawsuit, Mr. Gabbert maintained
that the village is "on solid ground" and that officials are
confident in the legality and their justification of the
increases. On June 13, he estimated that the village and the
water utility have incurred an expense between $40,000 and $50,000
over the lawsuit.
"My sense is you will find much higher numbers each with Wyckoff,
Midland Park and Glen Rock," Mr. Gabbert said, listing the special
attorney, special auditor and other financial officers, auditors
and accountants as the plaintiffs' additional expenses.
"It is safe to say we may be [25 percent] of the way through the
court process as to the costs," he added.
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Bird Food
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Scotts Miracle-
Gro sold bird seed contaminated with poisons that could hurt or
kill birds, a class action claims in Federal Court.
"Scotts failed to disclose that its bird seed contained pesticides
that were known to be highly toxic to birds," the complaint
states. "Instead, defendant knowingly sold millions of units of
its defective and toxic bird feed products, knowing the products
would be widely used to feed birds at purchasers' homes, in back
yards and in wild and natural environments across the United
States. Due to defendant's concealment of material information
regarding its use of toxic chemicals in its products, defendant's
products were not appropriate for their intended and marketed use
as bird feed, and were not worth the purchase price paid by
plaintiffs and the class. As a result of defendant's criminal
enterprise, thousands of American consumers and other purchasers
across the country did not receive the benefit of their bargain
and were damaged."
The products in question were marketed under names including
"Country Pride", "Morning Song", "Scott's Songbird Selections" and
"Scott's Wild Bird Food," according to the complaint.
The class claims that Scotts started adding the insecticides
Storcide II and Actellic 5E to its bird feed in November 2005 to
prevent insect infestation of feed grains during storage. They
claim those insecticides were not authorized for use by the
Environmental Protection Agency and that the EPA specifically
warns that Storcide II is extremely toxic to birds, fish and other
wildlife.
"On information and belief, during the summer and fall of 2007, a
pesticide chemist and an ornithologist working for Scotts warned
Scotts about the application of the pesticides Storcide II and
Actellic 5E to Scotts' Morning Song Products," the complaint
states. "These employees warned Scotts about the potential threat
to birds from using Storcide II in the bird food Scotts was
selling nationwide. Notwithstanding these warnings from its own
employees, Scotts, for over two years after it acquired the
Morning Song bird food line and for six months after the specific
warnings raised by its employees, continued to use the toxic
Storcide II on its Morning Song products, an application not
authorized by the EPA, as well as another pesticide, Actellic 5E,
which was also not authorized for use on bird food."
The plaintiffs claim Scott continued to sell the products until a
recall in March 2008, which took place in anticipation of an
upcoming EPA investigation. In January this year, the U.S.
Attorney in the Southern District of Ohio charged Scotts with
several crimes, including the illegal use of Storcide II and
Actellic 5E, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs claim that Scotts sold 73 million units of bird
food between November 2005 and the 2008 recall. They filed the
class action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
The class consists of all citizens of Illinois, Missouri,
Minnesota, Arkansas, Kentucky and New Mexico who bought Scott's
insecticide-laden products that were manufactured between November
2005 and March 2008.
The class seeks damages for violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Businesses Act; Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act; Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act; New Mexico Unfair Practices Act; Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act; unjust enrichment; and violations of
RICO.
A copy of the Complaint in Brumfield, et al. v. The Scotts
Miracle-Gro Company, Case No. 12-cv-00701 (S.D. Ill.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/15/Birdseed.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas P. Dowd, Esq.
Alex R. Lumaghi, Esq.
DOWD & DOWD P.C.
100 North Broadway, Suite 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-2500
STURM RUGER: August 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 15 issued a statement
pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
In re STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. Master File No.
SECURITIES LITIGATION 3:09-cv-01293-VLB
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC. COMMON
STOCK BETWEEN APRIL 23, 2007 AND OCTOBER 24, 2007, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, a hearing
will be held on August 20, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Vanessa L. Bryant, at the Abraham Ribicoff Federal
Building and United States Courthouse, 450 Main Street, Hartford,
Connecticut 06103, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed settlement of the Action for the sum of $3,000,000 in
cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement dated December 29, 2011; (3) whether
the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Plaintiff's counsel for
the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection
with this Litigation, together with interest thereon.
If you purchased Sturm, Ruger common stock between April 23, 2007
and October 24, 2007, inclusive, your rights may be affected by
this Litigation and the settlement thereof. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement
Fairness Hearing and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you
may obtain copies by writing to Sturm, Ruger Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box
990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990, by calling toll-free telephone
(888) 224-0149, by sending an e-mail to classact@gilardi.com or by
downloading this information at http://www.gilardi.com
If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than September 24, 2012, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be
excluded, in writing, to the above address, postmarked by August
1, 2012.
Any objection to the settlement must be filed with the Court and
received by counsel listed below no later than August 1, 2012.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART MICHAEL DOCKTERMAN
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 225 West Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
San Diego, CA 92101 Chicago, IL 60606
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: May 31, 2012
By Order of the Court CLERK OF THE COURT
THE LENDING CO: Faces Suit Over Illegal Kickbacks to Charities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims The Lending Co., a mortgage broker, struck illegal
deals with charities to "gift" up to 2.5 percent of borrowers'
down payments, and paid the charities a kickback equal to the
amount of the "gift," plus an administrative fee.
Lead plaintiff Margaret Galas claims that federal law requires a
3.5 percent down payment for a Federal Housing Administration
loan, and that no one "financially benefiting from the loan (e.g.,
a seller, lender or real estate agent) may give funds to the
borrower to help him come up with the down payment."
A charity "may financially help the borrower, so long as a
financially interested party does not reimburse the charity,"
according to the complaint.
But Ms. Galas claims The Lending Company "struck deals with
several charities to 'gift' up to 2.5 percent of the borrower's
down payment, creating what TLC called and heavily marketed as the
'1 percent down' FHA loan."
For each loan, The Lending Co. "paid the charity a behind-the-
scenes kickback equal to the amount of the 'gift' plus an
'administrative fee' as profit," the complaint states.
To get money for the kickbacks, The Lending Co. raised "the
borrower's interest rate to obtain a premium price for the loan in
the secondary market," the complaint states.
The kickback and associated fees "amounted to hidden closing costs
that TLC did not disclose to the borrower or HUD in either its
initial GFE ('good faith estimate' of loan closing costs, provided
at the loan application stage) or final HUD-1 Settlement Statement
(provided shortly before closing, listing the actual closing
costs, which ideally should match the GFE) as required by federal
law," the class claims.
For each loan, "the charities falsely certified to the borrower
and HUD in a 'gift letter' that (i) the gift funds were not 'made
available' to the charity 'by any person or entity with an
interest in the sale of the property' (which TLC clearly had by
virtue of profiting from the sale through origination of the loan
for it), and (ii) the borrower 'had no repayment obligation of any
kind under any circumstances,'" according to the complaint.
Also named as defendants are Mark and Jennifer Nickel; Dave
Johnson and Lauri-Serota Johnson; RJ Reynolds; Family Housing
Resources; Affordable Housing Partners; Partners in Action; Curtis
and Susan Cluff; Franklin American Mortgage Company; and Wells
Fargo Funding.
These defendants are the "principals that conceived of and
implemented the '1 percent down' FHA loan program, (ii) the
charities (and the head of one) that knowingly participated in the
scheme, (iii) two of the secondary market buyers of the loans that
also knowingly participated in it, and (iv) the current holders of
the loans," according to the complaint.
Ms. Galas seeks class certification, a declaration barring the
investor mortgagees from collecting on the loans and exercising
any rights under the deeds of trust, and damages for RICO fraud,
RESPA violations, consumer fraud, breach of contract, and
fraudulent misrepresentation and omission.
A copy of the Complaint in Galas v. The Lending Company, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-01265 (D. Ariz.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/15/DownPay.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. LaVoy, Esq.
RIDENOUR, HIENTON & LEWIS, P.L.L.C.
201 North Central Avenue, Suite 3300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1052
Telephone: (602) 254-9900
E-mail: clavoy@rhlfirm.com
- and -
Carlos Arboleda, Esq.
ARBOLEDA BRECHNER, PLC
4545 East Shea Boulevard, Suite 120
Phoenix, AZ 85254
Telephone: (602) 953-2400
E-mail: arboledac@abfirm.com
WEI LABORATORIES: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Facsimiles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Lookout Chiropratic Center, Inc., an Ohio corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Wei Laboratories, Inc. and John Does 1-10,
Case No. 4:12-cv-03046 (N.D. Calif., June 13, 2012) challenges the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
prohibits a person or entity from faxing or having an agent fax
advertisements without the recipients' express invitation or
permission. The Plaintiff argues that unsolicited faxes damage
their recipients because a junk fax recipient loses the use of its
fax machine, paper, and ink toner.
Mt. Lookout is an Ohio corporation located in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Wei Laboratories is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Santa Clara, California. The Doe Defendants
will be identified through discovery, but are not presently known.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
- and -
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
WELLPOINT INC: Settles Class Action for $90 Million
---------------------------------------------------
WellPoint Inc. has agreed to pay $90 million to settle a class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 700,000 former
members of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., as announced by
Zagrans Law Firm LLC and DeLaney & DeLaney LLC. The parties had
been scheduled to begin a jury trial on June 18, 2012 in federal
court in Indianapolis on legal claims arising from Anthem's 2001
conversion from a mutual company, owned by its insured
policyholders, to a stock company. WellPoint, Inc. is the
corporate parent of Anthem. The settlement, if approved by U.S.
District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, will resolve the lawsuit filed
in 2005 by those Anthem members who received cash compensation as
part of the conversion process. The class action complaint
alleged that Anthem did not pay the former mutual company members
the fair value of their membership interests.
The settlement will not become final and the settlement proceeds
cannot be paid to the class members unless and until Judge Pratt
determines that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.
In filings made with the Court on June 15, the plaintiffs propose
to send settlement notices to class members later this summer,
with checks to be mailed to class members starting as soon as the
settlement becomes final and fully in effect.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by Eric Zagrans of
Cleveland, DeLaney & DeLaney LLC of Indianapolis, Dennis Barron of
Cincinnati, Michael Becker of Cleveland, Berger & Montague, P.C.
of Philadelphia, and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. of Seattle.
Attorney Eric Zagrans stated, "Our clients were the owners of
Anthem before it demutualized in 2001, and they were entitled to
receive cash compensation equal to the fair value of their
ownership interests when the company converted from a mutual
company to a stock corporation. The Court ruled that their claims
of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against Anthem were
worthy of a jury's consideration."
Co-Class Counsel Kathleen DeLaney added, "The $90 million
settlement is one of the largest ever reported in the State of
Indiana. The Court certified a class of more than 700,000
residents of Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut . Plaintiffs'
legal team fought hard to help the class members obtain this $90
million cash settlement."
Details about the terms of the settlement can be found at
http://www.anthemcashclass.com
Contact: Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq.
DeLaney & DeLaney LLC
Telephone: 317-920-0400
E-mail: kathleen@delaneylaw.net
Web site: http://www.delaneylaw.net
- or -
Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
Zagrans Law Firm LLC
Telephone: 440-452-7100
E-mail: eric@zagrans.com
Web site: http://www.zagrans.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 * * *