/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120625.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 25, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 124 Headlines BEILINSON HOSPITAL: Patient Files Class Action Over AIDS Tests BIG LOTS: Recalls 70,500 Portable Ceramic Space Heaters CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Zamansky & Associates File Class Action CONAGRA FOODS: Hebrew National Disputes Kosher Class Action COOPER COMPANIES: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing on Aug. 7 CORVEL CORP: "Williams" Suit Claims Dismissal Bid Ruling Pending CORVEL CORP: "Roche" Suit Deal Payments to Be Completed in July CREDIT SUISSE: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action DIAGEO AMERICAS: Faces Class Action Over "Whiskey Fungus" FACEBOOK INC: King & Nix, Morgan & Morgan File Class Action FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Arbitration Motion in Kansas Suit Pending FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Paid $10-Mil. to Settle Missouri MDL Claims FRIGIDAIRE: Recalls 185 Self-Clean Gas Ranges Due to Fire Hazard GOOGLE INC: Sued for Intercepting E-mail From Non-Gmail Accounts HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Inkjet Suit Deal Approval Pending HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Gammel" Suit HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend Labor Code Violations Suits HEWLETT-PACKARD: Hearing in "Sinacori" Suit Set for Sept. 6 HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Plaintiffs Files 6th Amended Complaint HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: N.J. Building Code Violation Suit Remanded INTERNET GOLD: Parties in Suit vs. Pelephone Negotiate Deal INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over VAT Collection INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over Service Tariffs INTERNET GOLD: Plaintiff Ordered to Pay Expenses in Suit v. Unit INTERNET GOLD: Faces Carriers Provision Violation Suit INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Accessories Sale vs. Unit Dismissed INTERNET GOLD: Unit Awaits Minister's Position on Cell Radiation KENNETH COLE: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Buyout Transaction MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Former Shareholders Have No Share in Settlement MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action MONA VIE: Judge Grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Class Action OPNEXT INC: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Stayed in Del. Ct. OPNEXT INC: Plaintiffs Amend "Zilberberg" Class Suit Complaint PINNACLE FOODS: Vermont Community Law Center Files class Action RITE AID: Settles Store Managers' Wage & Hour Class Actions SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Indirect Flonase Buyers Must Prove Claims SPORT CHALET: Faces "Bennett" Class Action Suit in California THQ: Faces Three Securities Class Actions Over Failed uDraw TORO COMPANY: Still Defends Lawnmower-Related Suit in Canada UTI WORLDWIDE: "Precision" Antitrust Suit Still Pending in N.Y. WENDY'S INT'L: Faces Employment Discrimination Class Action * Quorn Residents Mull Class Action Against Solar Panel Company ********* BEILINSON HOSPITAL: Patient Files Class Action Over AIDS Tests -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Podolsky, writing for The Times of Israel, reports that a patient filed a class action lawsuit on June 19 against Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva, following an oversight where a piece of equipment was suspected to have been improperly cleaned, leading to HIV testing for 150 patients. According to Maariv, the unnamed patient's application to the District Court in Petah Tikva says "the patients are plagued by stress and panic, and their lives have become hell due to the hospital's failures." The patients were required to take AIDS tests after they underwent an endoscopy procedure with a device that may not have been sufficiently disinfected after it was used to examine an HIV- positive patient. "The hospital is supposed to supervise the work of its staff and to guide them," read the patient's statement. "The plaintiffs had their autonomy breached, suffered negligence, deception and unlawful damage." The Health Ministry said that the patients in question face a very low risk of infection and the ministry supports the hospital's decision to act cautiously and refer them for testing. Beilinson Hospital, part of the Rabin Medical Center, responded to the development by saying that "the hospital located the problem and acted responsibly and transparently by carrying out the appropriate tests. The [patient's] lawsuit has not reached us yet. We shall respond to it through the appropriate legal channels." BIG LOTS: Recalls 70,500 Portable Ceramic Space Heaters ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 70,500 units of Portable Space Heater and Portable Oscillating Space Heater. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The heaters can overheat and melt, posing a fire or electric shock hazard. Big Lots has received four reports of the product overheating and melting. There are no reports of injury, fire or property damage. This recall is of two models of 1500 watt Climate Keeper ceramic heaters. Both models have a fan, two dials on top, a wire mesh panel in front and the name "Climate Keeper" and a label on the bottom with the model number and ETL 3130679. Model #FH107A has grey plastic housing. Model #PTC-902T is an oscillating heater with silver-grey plastic housing, a molded handle on top of the heater and a small extra button between the two dials which controls the oscillation. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12200.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Big Lots stores nationwide from September 2010 through March 2012 for about $20 for Model #FH107A and $25 for Model #PTC-902T. Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and return it to a Big Lots store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Big Lots toll-free at (866) 244-5687 between 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.biglots.com/ CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Zamansky & Associates File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Zamansky & Associates, LLC on June 19 filed a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of all employee and former employee participants in the Chesapeake Energy Corporation's Savings and Incentive Stock Bonus Plan. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and covers all current and former employees of Chesapeake Energy Corporation who purchased or held Company stock in the Plan from July 31, 2008 to the present. Since April 2012, Chesapeake has been the subject of a dozen lawsuits, alleging securities fraud, corporate waste and breach of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. The lawsuits arise out of revelations about CEO Aubrey McClendon, his perks and compensation, and certain business strategies he pursued to his own benefit and the detriment of the Company. Ms. McClendon took $1.1 billion in loans against personal stakes in the Company's oil and gas wells he obtained under the Founder's Well Participation Program. To bail himself out of financial problems, and maximize his own gains, Ms. McClendon pursued an aggressive expansion strategy for Chesapeake and piled on enormous debt through off- balance sheet arrangements that were not disclosed on the Company's balance sheet. He also borrowed from firms that also transacted business with Chesapeake, creating huge conflicts of interest. Ms. McClendon additionally ran a lucrative business on the side: a $200 million hedge fund that traded in the same commodities that Chesapeake produces from the Company's offices. ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for pension plans set up by private businesses, and protects people who participate in employee benefit plans. The class action lawsuit alleges that the Plan's fiduciaries i) failed to manage and administer the assets with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence of a prudent person, ii) failed to disclose material information to the Plan's participants, iii) and engaged in activities inconsistent with, and detrimental to, the Plan and its participants. If you are a current or former participant in any of Chesapeake's retirement or stock plans, and wish to be included in this ERISA class action, please contact: Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. Zamansky & Associates, LLC 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 E-mail: jake@zamansky.com Web site: http://www.zamansky.com CONAGRA FOODS: Hebrew National Disputes Kosher Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Debra Rubin, writing for JTA, reports that Hebrew National boasts of "answering to a higher authority," but several class-action lawyers are hoping to take one of the country's largest kosher meat producers to an earthly court. A class-action lawsuit filed recently alleges that Hebrew National's iconic hot dogs and other meats do not comport with the brand's claim to be kosher "as defined by the most stringent Jews who follow Orthodox Jewish law." The suit filed May 18 in a Minnesota state court accuses ConAgra Foods, Inc., which owns the Hebrew National brand, of consumer fraud. ConAgra, which has rejected the claims unequivocally, asked on June 6 that the suit be moved to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The company has until July 13 to respond to the complaint. Lawyers from firms in Scottsdale, Ariz.; Long Beach, Calif.; and Minneapolis, Minn., submitted the complaint on behalf of 11 named plaintiffs. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Hart L. Robinovitch of Zimmerman Reed, is based in Scottsdale but his firm has offices in Minnesota. Mr. Robinovitch would not say how the suit was initiated. Zimmerman Reed, however, solicited consumers through its Web site, where a page until recently announced a Hebrew National investigation. "Our firm has received troubling reports that some slaughterhouse plants supplying Hebrew National with its beef may not be upholding the strict kosher standards Hebrew National promises," the page stated. "Workers are threatened with losing their job, or demotion, if they speak up and try to point out violations of the kosher food laws." The firm advertised a free case review for anyone who purchased Hebrew National hot dogs in the past two years or had information about the preparation of the products. "The lawsuit contends that ConAgra marketed, labeled and sold Hebrew National according to the strictest standards defined by Orthodox Jews. We allege that it does not meet those standards," Mr. Robinovitch said. "We're certainly not alleging that they're using pork products, or anything as blatant as that." The lawsuit's 11 named plaintiffs live in various states, including California, Minnesota, New York and Arizona. JTA was unable to reach any of the individuals. The suit, which was reported originally by the American Jewish World newspaper, is seeking monetary damages equal to the total amount of monies that consumers in the class paid for Hebrew National meat products. Triangle-K, the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based supervising agency that certifies Hebrew National products as kosher and the company that processes the kosher meat, also unequivocally rejected the allegations and contended that disgruntled former employees might be behind them. Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag, the owner of Triangle-K, said in a statement that the claims in the lawsuit were "outrageously false and defamatory." He added, "Those who make the false allegations know full well that because their identities are concealed and their false statements are made in a court pleading, Triangle-K and its principals cannot sue them for defamation." AER, which provides the kosher slaughtering services at Hebrew National facilities in the Midwest, including in Minnesota, rejected the charges as well. "The company intends to defend its reputation and good name," AER's president, Shlomo Ben-David, said in a statement. Teresa Paulson, a ConAgra spokesperson, said she could not comment on pending litigation, but that the company stood by Hebrew National's kosher status. Neither AER nor Triangle-K is named as a defendant in the suit. Triangle-K has been supervising Hebrew National products since 2004. The Conservative movement accepts the Triangle-K kashrut certification. Kosher consumers choose among hundreds of companies nationwide as to which certifications they trust. There are about 750 Orthodox kosher certifying organizations in the United States, according to Rabbi Yosef Wikler, editor of Kashrus magazine, which also maintains a Web site for non-Orthodox certifiers. "Almost no kosher organization accepts 100 percent of any other kosher organization 100 percent of the time," Rabbi Wikler said. The suit, which does not attribute the allegations to anyone by name, alleges that the Hebrew National brand was not, as the company advertises, kosher "as defined by the most stringent Jews who follow Orthodox law." As result, plaintiffs, who paid a premium price "believing the kosher title and certification made them a higher quality product than other meat products on the market" were "deprived of the value of the goods they purchased," the complaint states. Among the suit's allegations: * Knives used in the slaughtering process were nicked, preventing a clean cut mandated by kosher law; * Organ meat was not consistently inspected after slaughter, as required for kashrut; * The blood of slaughtered animals was not consistently removed within 72 hours, as required by kosher law; * Managers took certificates that had been issued to trained slaughterers and replaced their names with individuals who had not been trained; * Kosher meat was not consistently kept separate from non-kosher meat. In his statement, Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag said, point by point, that all the allegations are false. The suit also alleges that workers at some AER facilities, including in St. Paul, Minn., kept kosher, but would not eat the Hebrew National products. Those workers, according to the complaint, were allowed to purchase meats from "specifically selected cows [that] would be slaughtered and checked in strict accordance with all kosher laws, unlike the cows that routinely slaughtered for sale to Defendant and use in Hebrew National Products." AER said the allegation is misleading. According to AER, employees who eat only glatt kosher were provided meat to comply with their personal preferences. Glatt is a higher standard of kosher and means that the lungs of the slaughtered animal are free of any blemishes. If the lungs are blemished, the meat is still considered kosher, but not glatt. Triangle-K does not claim that the products it certifies are glatt kosher. Additionally, the suit alleges that employees involved in the kosher slaughtering process complained to AER supervisor Rabbi Moshe Fyzakov and Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag, but those officials "did little or nothing to correct the transgressions. Rather, the persons making the complaints were terminated or otherwise threatened with adverse retaliation, such as job transfers to other facilities or states. In turn, non-kosher meat was delivered to ConAgra and packaged, labeled and sold to the public [including the plaintiffs in the lawsuit] as strictly 100 percent kosher." A Triangle-K spokesman said, "Every complaint was followed up on, and no one was disciplined for making a complaint." The spokesman also said it is "totally false" that non-kosher meat was delivered to ConAgra to be sold as kosher and that "We have clear distinctions in place to prevent such happenings." COOPER COMPANIES: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing on Aug. 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing to consider The Cooper Companies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit is scheduled for August 7, 2012, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. On November 28, 2011, Harold Greenberg filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:11-cv-05697-YGR, against the following defendants: the Company; Robert S. Weiss, its President, Chief Executive Officer and a director; Eugene J. Midlock, its former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Albert G. White, III, its Vice President of Investor Relations, Treasurer and Chief Strategic Officer. On December 12, 2011, a second individual, Ross Wallen, filed a related complaint against the same defendants in the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:11-cv-06214-YGR. The Wallen complaint largely repeats the allegations in the Greenberg complaint. Greenberg and Wallen each sought to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 4, 2011, and November 15, 2011. On February 29, 2012, the court ordered the Greenberg and Wallen actions consolidated and appointed Universal-Investment- Gesellschaft mbH Lead Plaintiff. On May 4, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which alleges that the Company, Robert S. Weiss and Eugene J. Midlock violated Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by, among other things, making misrepresentations with an intent to deceive investors concerning the safety of the Avaira(R) Toric and Avaira Sphere contact lenses, which the Company recalled in 2011. The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the purported class. On June 1, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is scheduled for hearing on August 7, 2012. Discovery is stayed pending a resolution of motions to dismiss. The Company says it is not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on the Company's financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any. CORVEL CORP: "Williams" Suit Claims Dismissal Bid Ruling Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- CorVel Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss all claims covered by its settlement of the class action lawsuit filed by George Raymond Williams, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. On March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD. ("Williams"), as plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation ("CorVel") and its insurance carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other unrelated parties. Williams alleges that CorVel violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act (the "AWPA"), which requires a payor accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days' advance written notice or point of service notice in the form of a benefit card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured under that payor's health benefit plan. On March 31, 2011, CorVel entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the class setting forth the terms of settlement of this class action lawsuit. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and final non-appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana state court, CorVel will pay $9 million to resolve claims for which CorVel recorded a $9 million pre-tax charge to earnings during the March 2011 quarter. In addition, CorVel will assign to the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of CorVel's insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the class. The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana Hospital Association dba Lake Charles Memorial Hospital as previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within the settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed to request that the appropriate courts stay all related proceedings in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana Office of Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association in which the parties are named, until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and receives final court approval. The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability. On June 23, 2011, CorVel and class counsel executed a definitive settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contains the same terms and conditions as were set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding. Accordingly, CorVel made a $9 million cash payment into escrow on July 6, 2011. As set forth in the settlement agreement, certain contingencies such as preliminary court approval, resolutions of objections filed by class members challenging the fairness of the settlement, class members excluded from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold, and final court approval, must be satisfied before the settlement can become final. On June 23, 2011, the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry, Louisiana granted preliminary approval of settlement and set a deadline of October 16, 2011, for parties to opt out of or object to the proposed settlement. Notice of the settlement was given to Class Members. The Court gave final approval of the settlement on November 4, 2011. No appeal has been filed since that time, so the judgment became final on January 17, 2012. CorVel has begun to move for dismissal of all claims covered by the settlement in state and federal court. No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing. In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members will release CorVel and all of its affiliates and clients for any claims relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or reimbursement of a workers' compensation bill, including but not limited to claims under the AWPA. Plaintiffs have also agreed to a notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply with the AWPA. CORVEL CORP: "Roche" Suit Deal Payments to Be Completed in July --------------------------------------------------------------- In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against CorVel Corporation. The case sought unspecified damages based on the Company's alleged failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review medical providers' bills. The Company denies that its conduct was improper in any way and denied all liability. On October 29, 2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement providing for the payment of $2.1 million to class members and up to an additional $700,000 for attorneys' fees and expenses, and as a result the Company accrued $2.8 million of estimated liability for this settlement agreement during the quarter ended September 30, 2010. In exchange for the settlement payment by the Company, class members consisting of Illinois medical providers (excluding hospitals) have released the Company and all of its affiliates for claims relating to any PPO or usual and customary reductions recommended by the Company on class members' medical bills. On January 21, 2011, the Circuit Court gave final approval to the settlement and awarded class counsel $700,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses. A modified final judgment approving the settlement and addressing certain class notice issues was approved on January 20, 2012; the modified judgment did not change the financial terms of the settlement or the release. Initial payments were sent to class members on July 18, 2011 and the remaining payments to class members should be completed by July 2012. No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. The Company says there can be no assurance that it will not be subjected to additional litigation similar to this proceeding. Any such additional litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations. CREDIT SUISSE: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 12-cv-4756 on behalf of all persons who purchased VelocityShares Daily2x Long VIX Short-Term Exchange Traded Notes, during the period November 30, 2010 through March 22, 2012 against Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Group, VelocityShares, LLC and certain individual defendants for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that the Pricing Supplements for the TVIX ETNs contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that the relationship between short-term measures of volatility and longer term measures of volatility, i.e. the term structure, or yield curve risk, of volatility was a crucial and undisclosed risk associated with the TVIX ETNs. In fact it was among the most important variables and the most likely to cause an adverse price movement. The TVIX ETNs began trading on Nov. 30, 2010 at more than $100 per ETN. In February 2012, defendants stopped issuing additional TVIX ETNs, because of supposed internal limits on the size of TVIX ETNs. Less than one month later, without any warning or further explanation, defendants announce the planned reopening of the issuance of the TVIX ETNs. As a result of this surprise announcement, the market price dropped 29% to close at $10.20, and further decreased to $5.88 on March 26, 2012 per ETN. Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered losses. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17, 2012. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or any questions concerning this notice, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or via e-mail at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com A copy of the complaint can be viewed at http://www.bernardmgross.com Plaintiffs are represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. The firm has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. DIAGEO AMERICAS: Faces Class Action Over "Whiskey Fungus" --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that homeowners claim in a federal class action that emissions from a Diageo Americas distillery are feeding a "whiskey fungus" that eats airborne alcohol, and that the ugly black fungus has contaminated their homes. Lead plaintiff Bruce Merrick, five other Louisville residents and a business sued Diageo Americas Supply, which operates a distillery and warehouse in Louisville. They claim their property has been damaged by the booze-loving fungus. "Defendant's operations cause the fungus Baudoinia compniacensis, colloquially referred to as 'whiskey fungus,' to accumulate on real and personal property in the vicinity of defendant's operations in Kentucky," the complaint states. "The accumulation of whiskey fungus on plaintiffs' property and the property of others similarly caused by defendant's operations creates an unsightly condition requiring abnormal and costly cleaning and maintenance, early weathering of surfaces affected by the fungus and causes unreasonable and substantial annoyance and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the property, and, as a result of which, the value, value of use and/or the rental value of the property is reduced. "Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others who have similarly suffered injury to their Kentucky property as a result of the defendant's conduct described herein." Baudoinia compniacensis is named for the French pharmacist Antonin Baudoin, who wondered in 1872 why the black, sooty fungus grew on the walls and roofs of buildings near distilleries in Cognac. It turns out that the ascomycete fungus likes to feed on airborne alcohol. Ascomycetes, or sac fungi, are the largest phylum of fungus, with more than 64,000 species. The fungus is not believed to be harmful to the plants and buildings it grows on -- it's just ugly. The class seeks an injunction and damages for trespass, nuisance and negligence. They are represented by William McMurry and Douglas Morris. A copy of the Complaint in Merrick, et al. v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00334 (W.D. Ky.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/20/WhiskeyFungus.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: William F. McMurry, Esq. MCMURRY & ASSOCIATES 1211 Herr Lane, Suite 205 Louisville, KY 40222 - and - Douglas H. Morris, Esq. Lea A. Player, Esq. Ben W. Carter, Esq. MORRIS & PLAYER PLLC 1211 Herr Lane, Suite 205 Louisville, KY 40222 E-mail: lap@morrisplayer.com FACEBOOK INC: King & Nix, Morgan & Morgan File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Former Alabama Attorney General Troy King's law firm, King & Nix, has joined forces with Morgan & Morgan in filing a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Facebook, Inc. who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of common stock pursuant to or traceable to the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering. "As the former chief law enforcement officer of the State of Alabama, nothing makes me angrier than to see Alabamians become the victims of corporate greed. This lawsuit is an effort to hold those responsible to account," said Mr. King. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO was materially false and misleading in violation of the federal securities laws. More particularly, the complaint notes that Facebook failed to disclose to the investing public the material information that the company was experiencing, and anticipating, a significant drop in revenue due to an increase of users accessing Facebook through mobile devices. According to news reports, this lower revenue projection was selectively released by underwriter banks to only certain clients and not included in the Registration Statement. Facebook's May 18, 2012, IPO raised over $16 billion by selling over 420 million shares of the Company's common stock to investors at a price of $38.00 per share. In connection with the IPO, certain Defendants filed a Registration Statement with several amendments and a Prospectus. Investors from the State of Alabama who would like more information about the Facebook case are encouraged to contact Troy King at 855-335-8769, while all Facebook investors are encouraged to contact Morgan & Morgan's Peter Safirstein and Sheila Feerick by calling 1-800-SEC-5200 (1-800-732-5200) or e-mailing securitieslaw@ForThePeople.com Investors who purchased Facebook shares pursuant to or traceable to the Company's May 18, 2012 IPO, may, no later than July 23, 2012, request that the Court appoint them lead plaintiff to act on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Arbitration Motion in Kansas Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.'s motion to compel arbitration in the class action lawsuit pending in Kansas remains pending, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. The Company and its operating partner, Ferrellgas, L.P., have been named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas. The complaint alleges that Ferrellgas violates consumer protection laws in the manner Ferrellgas sets prices and fees for its customers. Based on Ferrellgas' business practices, Ferrellgas believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the claims vigorously. The court has stayed discovery on this matter pending the outcome of Ferrellgas' motion to compel arbitration, and the case has not been certified for class treatment. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to this class action lawsuit. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Paid $10-Mil. to Settle Missouri MDL Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. paid $10 million in March 2012 in settlement of the claims in an antitrust multidistrict litigation in Missouri, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. The Company and its operating partner, Ferrellgas, L.P., have been named as a defendant in lawsuits filed in multiple federal and state courts that seek to certify nationwide or statewide classes related to its Blue Rhino branded propane tank exchange activities. The plaintiffs in each case generally allege that Ferrellgas failed to inform consumers of the amount of propane contained in propane tanks they purchased and that Ferrellgas violated anti-trust laws by allegedly conspiring with a competitor. The federal cases have been coordinated for multidistrict treatment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. A settlement agreement has received approval by the Court. Ferrellgas believes these claims will not have a material impact on the consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Ferrellgas beyond the $10.0 million paid during March 2012 for these claims. FRIGIDAIRE: Recalls 185 Self-Clean Gas Ranges Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 185 units of Frigidaire Self-Clean Gas Range were voluntarily recalled by Frigidaire, of Charlotte, North Carolina, in cooperation with the CPSC. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. There can be a delayed ignition on the bake/broil features of the oven, posing a fire hazard. One incident was reported. No injuries or damage have been reported. This recall for inspection and/or repair involves Frigidaire Gas Ranges Model # LGGF3043KFM with serial numbers within the following range: VF20457216 to VF20457555. The model and serial numbers are located near the base of the range just below the bottom right portion of the oven door. This gas range has five burners, stainless steel exterior and Frigidaire nameplate centered on the lower part of the oven door. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12737.html The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold exclusively at Lowe's stores from February 2012 through March 2012 for between $800 and $1,000. Consumers with the recalled model and serial numbers should stop using the bake and broil functions immediately and contact Frigidaire. Frigidaire will provide information about an inspection and arrange for a free in-home service and repair if necessary. For additional information, contact Frigidaire toll free at (888) 360-8556 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.selfcleangasrangerecall.com/ GOOGLE INC: Sued for Intercepting E-mail From Non-Gmail Accounts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a man claims in a class action in Marin County Superior Court that Google illegally intercepts e-mails from non-Gmail subscribers to Gmail subscribers, to "review those e-mails for their words, content and thought processes." A copy of the Complaint in Diamond v. Google, Inc., Case No. CIV 1202715 (Calif. Super. Ct., Marin Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/20/GoogleCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. Clifford L. Carter, Esq. Kirk J. Wolden, Esq. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 924-3100 E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com ccarter@justice4you.com kwolden@justice4you.com - and - Perry D. Litchfield, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PERRY D. LITCHFIELD 1000 4th Street, Suite 875 San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 459-2000 E-mail: perry@sprintmail.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Inkjet Suit Deal Approval Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company is involved in several lawsuits claiming breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. The lawsuits in the Inkjet Printer Litigation are: -- A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On January 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion for summary judgment. On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions. On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for April 9, 2010, was postponed. -- A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2010, but was taken off the calendar. -- A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on May 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images and text. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only damages class. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2010, but was taken off the calendar. -- Two class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., are pending in Canada, one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006 and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed classes, which agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes final. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible class members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed $5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or printer supplies through HP's Web site. As part of the proposed settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members with additional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionality and to change the content of certain software and user guide messaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printer cartridges. In addition, class counsel and the class representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends. On March 29, 2011, the court granted final approval of the settlement. On April 27, 2011, certain class members who objected to the settlement filed an appeal of the court's order granting final approval of the settlement. No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Gammel" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit initiated by Richard Gammel, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on September 13, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010, to August 18, 2011, the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP's business model, the future of the webOS operating system, and HP's commitment to developing and integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad tablet PC. On April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The court has not yet ruled on that motion. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend Labor Code Violations Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company continues to defend class action lawsuits alleging violations of the California Labor Code or other state laws, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of HP's subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Those matters include these: -- Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging similar facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of a class consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter. Approximately 2,600 current and former EDS employees have filed consents to opt-in to the litigation. Plaintiffs have also alleged separate "opt out" classes based on the overtime laws of the states of California, Washington, Massachusetts, and New York, but plaintiffs have not yet sought class certification for those classes. -- Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed in November 2006 in California Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in California were misclassified as exempt employees. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which, on January 7, 2008, certified a class of information technology workers in California. On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A hearing on the appeal was held in August 2011, and the decision is pending. Two other purported class actions originally filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009, allege similar facts. The Karlbom case is pending in San Diego County Superior Court but has been temporarily stayed based on the pending Steavens consolidated matter. The George case was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and had been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham and Steavens cases. On September 9, 2011, the court granted a request by the plaintiffs' counsel in the George matter to amend the plaintiffs' complaint and sever the case from the Steavens consolidated matter. The plaintiff thereafter filed his first amended complaint on October 21, 2011. On November 23, 2011, the court transferred the George matter back to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. -- Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported nationwide collective action filed on February 17, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming that a class of information technology support personnel were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On February 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the court conditionally certify the case as a collective action. Only one opt-in plaintiff had joined the named plaintiff in the lawsuit at the time that the motion was filed. HP has opposed plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. -- Fenn, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on May 24, 2011, in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho alleging that customer service representatives working in HP's U.S. call centers are not paid for time spent on start-up and shut-down tasks (such as booting up and shutting down their computers) in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On December 12, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification but allowed the plaintiff to re-file that motion following limited discovery on the issue of conditional certification. On March 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended motion for conditional certification seeking to certify a class of all HP customer service representatives located in Boise, Idaho. On May 17, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion. The court authorized plaintiff to notify certain HP employees of the collective action, but narrowed the scope of the proposed class and shortened the length of the proposed class period. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Hearing in "Sinacori" Suit Set for Sept. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on a motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned Sinacori v. Hewlett-Packard Company is scheduled for September 6, 2012, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. Sinacori v. HP is a consumer class action originally filed against HP on December 1, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that HP printers have a design defect in the software installed on the printers which could allow hackers and unauthorized users to gain access to the printers, steal personal and confidential information from consumers and otherwise control and cause physical damage to the printers. The original complaint also alleged that HP was aware of this security vulnerability and failed to disclose it to consumers. The original complaint sought certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP printers and unspecified damages, restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 3, 2012, an amended complaint was filed substituting a new plaintiff from the state of New York in place of the original plaintiff. The amended complaint asserts only a single claim under the New York consumer protection statute, and the amended complaint now seeks to certify a class of consumers in the state of New York who purchased an HP printer that lacks a "digital signature" or "code signing" security feature. Like the original complaint, the amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. HP has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and a hearing on HP's motion is scheduled to be held on September 6, 2012. HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Plaintiffs Files 6th Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Skold, et al. filed their sixth amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company on May 31, 2012, according to Hewlett-Packard Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is a lawsuit in which HP was joined on June 14, 2004, that is pending in state court in Santa Clara County, California. The lawsuit alleges that Intel Corporation ("Intel") misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor. The lawsuit alleges that HP aided and abetted Intel's allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class. On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a nationwide class asserting claims under the California Unfair Competition Law. On April 19, 2012, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion. As to Intel, the court certified a nationwide class excluding residents of Illinois. As to HP, the court certified a class limited to California residents. As required by the same order, the plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended Complaint on April 30, 2012, pursuant to which the plaintiffs have limited their claims against HP to a California class while reserving the right to seek additional state-specific subclasses as to HP. On May 31, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Complaint eliminating one claim against Intel but not affecting the claims against HP. HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: N.J. Building Code Violation Suit Remanded ----------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey Supreme Court, in May, remanded the class action lawsuit filed by the D'Andreas back to the appellate court, according to Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.'s Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C. have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit. The action was filed by Mike D'Andrea and Tracy D'Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006, alleging that the HVAC systems installed in certain of the Company's homes are in violation of applicable New Jersey building codes and are a potential safety issue. On December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification; the potential class is 1,065 homes. The defendants filed a request to take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification decision. The Appellate Division denied the request, and the defendants filed a request for interlocutory review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company believes there is insurance coverage available to it for this action. While the Company has determined that a loss related to this case is not probable, it is not possible to estimate a loss or range of loss related to this matter at this time. On December 19, 2011, certain subsidiaries of the Company filed a separate action seeking indemnification against the various manufactures and subcontractors implicated by the class action. INTERNET GOLD: Parties in Suit vs. Pelephone Negotiate Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a purported class action lawsuit against Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary, Pelephone Communications Ltd., are negotiating to resolve their dispute, 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 December 2007, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, in Israel, against Pelephone Communications Ltd., Cellcom Israel Ltd. and Partner Communications Company Ltd., together with a motion to certify it as a class action in the amount of NIS1 billion. The claim relates to alleged radiation damage from cellular antennas which were ostensibly erected unlawfully. On February 28, 2012, the parties notified the Court that they need an additional time to reach an agreement. The Company says in the event that an agreement will not be reached, the legal procedure will continue. INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over VAT Collection --------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending a purported class action lawsuit over its collection of value added tax from customers, who use its services when they are outside Israel, 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 August 2010, a claim was filed with the District Court for the Central District, together with a motion to certify it as a class action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd. The amount of the claim is not stated, but the application is estimated to be in tens of millions of shekels. According to the plaintiff, Pelephone should refrain from collecting Value Added Tax from customers who use its services when they are outside Israel. The application also seeks an order instructing Pelephone to cease charging its customers for the services they use outside Israel and an order instructing that the fees collected to date be refunded. A pre-trial hearing was scheduled for May 23, 2012. INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over Service Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------- Pelephone Communications Ltd., a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd., is defending a purported class action lawsuit over service tariffs for business customers, 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 December 2011, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, in Israel, together with an application for its certification as a class action, against Pelephone for a total amount of NIS381 million. The plaintiff alleged that Pelephone unlawfully updated its service tariffs for business customers. INTERNET GOLD: Plaintiff Ordered to Pay Expenses in Suit v. Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A plaintiff was ordered to pay court expenses after he abandoned his application for class certification in a lawsuit against Pelephone Communications Ltd., according to Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. In January 2011, a claim was filed with the Jerusalem District Court, in Israel, together with an application to certify it as a class action. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased two Samsung handsets but was unable to use them for surfing the Internet even though he purchased surfing services. In February 2012, the Court approved the applicant's abandonment of the certification and ordered him to pay court expenses. INTERNET GOLD: Faces Carriers Provision Violation Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. and its subsidiary are facing a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the carriers provision of telecommunication services to handicapped customers, 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 February 2012, a claim was filed with the Jerusalem District Court, in Israel, against Pelephone Communications Ltd., Cellcom Israel Ltd., Partner Communications Company Ltd. and Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., together with an application for its certification as a class action, for a total amount of NIS361 million. The claim alleges violations with respect to the carriers provision of telecommunication services to handicapped customers. INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Accessories Sale vs. Unit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ A purported class action lawsuit over sale of accessories filed against a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. was dismissed in September 2011, 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 June 2011, a motion was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, in Israel, together with an application to certify it as a class action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd., Partner Communications Company Ltd. and Mirs Communications Ltd. The case arises from the sale of accessories for carrying handsets on the body that does not comply with the instructions of the handset manufacturers and the Ministry of Health with respect to non- ionizing radiation. In addition to financial relief, additional relief in the form of an injunction to prohibit the sale of these items, or alternatively to publish a warning, was requested. In September 2011, the action against Pelephone was dismissed, after the Court concluded that there was no firm evidence for the filing of an action against Pelephone. INTERNET GOLD: Unit Awaits Minister's Position on Cell Radiation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is waiting for the Minister of Communication of Israel to provide its position on the issue about bodily damage arising from exposure to cellular radiation, 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 March 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd. and Cellcom Israel Ltd. The total amount of the claim is approximately NIS4.2 billion and the amount of the claim against Pelephone is NIS2.1 billion. The plaintiffs claim that Pelephone acts in contravention of its license and the law in that it does not purchase insurance covering its liability for bodily damage arising from exposure to cellular radiation. The application also seeks an order instructing Pelephone to take out such insurance. On October 25, 2010, the Court requested the Minister of Communication to provide its position on this issue. When the position is submitted to the Court, the parties will have an opportunity to respond. KENNETH COLE: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Buyout Transaction --------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Lawrence, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., Kenneth D. Cole, Paul Blum, Michael J. Blitzer, Robert C. Grayson, Denis F. Kelly, Philip R. Peller, KCP Holdco, Inc., and KCP Mergerco, Inc., Case No. 652111/2012 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 18, 2012) is brought on behalf of all public shareholders of the Company arising out of the proposed buyout of the Company by its chairman, chief creative officer and controlling shareholder, Kenneth D. Cole. On June 6, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with KCP Holdco, Inc., a Delaware corporation wholly controlled by Mr. Cole and formed for the purposes of the buyout, and KCP Mergerco, Inc., a New York corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Mr. Cole will take the Company private in a leveraged buyout transaction whereby Parent will acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares for $15.25 per share in cash. In connection with the Proposed Buyout, the Plaintiff alleges that the Board failed to adequately discharge its fiduciary duties to the shareholders by failing to ensure that minority shareholders will receive maximum value for their shares. Mr. Lawrence is a Company shareholder. The Company, a New York corporation, designs, sources, and markets a range of fashion footwear, handbags, and apparel in the United States and internationally. The company, through license agreements, also designs and markets apparel and accessories under its Kenneth Cole New York, Kenneth Cole Reaction, Unlisted, and Le Tigre brand names, and footwear under the proprietary Gentle Souls trademark. Mr. Cole has served as the Company's Chairman of the Board since its inception in 1982 and was also President until February 2002 and Chief Executive Officer until May 2008. The other Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. KCP Holdco was formed by Mr. Cole for the purpose of the Buyout. KCP Mergerco is a New York corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Andrea Y. Lee, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com alee@rgrdlaw.com - and - Hamilton Lindley, Esq. GOLDFARB LLP 2501 N. Harwood St., Suite 1801 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 583-2233 Facsimile: (214) 583-2234 E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbllp.com MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Former Shareholders Have No Share in Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rich Kirchen, writing for The Business Journal, reports that the attorneys who represented former Marshall & Ilsley Corp. shareholders will be paid $695,000 in fees but shareholders, will receive no cash in a settlement of class-action suits filed against the company and its former board of directors. A settlement including the attorneys' fees and the $0 for shareholders was approved on June 19 by Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Jane Carroll. The shareholders' lead attorney was Jeffrey Light of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego. The shareholders' Milwaukee attorney was Scott Wagner. A notice of the settlement was sent to about 95,000 former Marshall & Ilsley shareholders. Only three filed objections to the settlement and one withdrew an objection before the June 19 brief hearing. Toronto-based BMO Financial acquired M&I in July 2011 for about $4.1 billion plus the payment of M&I's $1.7 million in debt from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Each outstanding share of M&I was exchanged for 0.1257 shares of BMO. The transaction valued each share of M&I at $7.75. Class action attorneys from across the country filed a total of 10 shareholder suits against Marshall & Ilsley in December 2010, claiming the M&I board breached its fiduciary duty by selling the company for less than it was worth. In the only concession the plaintiffs' attorneys received, Marshall & Ilsley agreed to file additional disclosures on what led to the transaction. That happened in May 2011 when the company filed an updated prospectus with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- On June 18, 2012, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. between September 26, 2007 and through and including June 8, 2012, against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, alleging fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5]. The case name is styled Shnerer v. Lawler, et al., Case 1:12-cv- 11078. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com The complaint alleges that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded numerous facts known to them during the Class Period concerning the Company's profitability, business and accounting practices. It is further alleged that Defendants continually issued statements in its SEC filings that were materially false and misleading. Specifically: a) The Company's scheme was to aggregate its business in order to acquire volume discounts from vendors, and then mark up the discounts to clients without their knowledge, inconsistent with their contracts, and incorrectly account for these discounts and mark-ups as revenue; b) All of the press releases and Form 10-Ks and Form 10-Qs issued by the Company and the Individual Defendants during the Class Period were materially false and misleading because they did not accurately reflect the Company's treatment of rebates associated with volume discounts by vendors; and c) Defendants continually made false and materially misleading statements and omissions during the Class Period concerning the Company's treatment of rebates associated with volume discounts provided by vendors, vendor costs which were marked-up to clients in a manner not consistent with client contracts, volume discounts and mark-ups incorrectly accounted for as revenue, the Company's accounting practices, generally, and the Company?s revenue and net income. On the morning of June 11, 2012, ModusLink disclosed, for the first time that the Company had continually reported inflated revenue and net income figures during the Class Period and that it would restate its financial results going back to 2007, as a result of its serious problems in how it accounted for revenues and net income, as well as the way it billed customers for certain services. The press release also stated that ModusLink President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph C. Lawler would be stepping down and also relinquishing his seat on the Board of Directors, effective immediately. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of ModusLink common stock. Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said common stock, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. If you purchased ModusLink common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by August 11, 2012. 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 Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in Chicago, New York City and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi- district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. or Derek Behnke), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our Web site at http://www.whafh.com MONA VIE: Judge Grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Keahey, writing for Legal Newsline reports that in a pending class action lawsuit against Mona Vie juice products, U.S. District Judge Susan O. Hickey has granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas. Judge Hickey ruled that the plaintiff's complaint, which alleges misleading advertising, contained statements that were specific enough to avoid removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). She wrote that, "[R]emoval is defeated by adding to the complaint a binding stipulation promising not to seek greater damages than the jurisdictional minimum." Named plaintiff Joe Neal Oliver, individually and as class representative on behalf of similarly situated persons, filed the class action against Mona Vie Inc. and Mona Vie L.L.C. on Dec. 16, 2010 in Miller County Circuit Court. In the complaint, the plaintiff stated that he was seeking less than $75,000 per class member and less than $5 million in total damages. Oliver and the proposed class are represented by John C. Goodson and Matt Kiel of Kiel & Goodson in Texarkana and Michael B. Angelovich, Brad E. Seidel and Christopher Johnson of Nix, Patterson & Roach in Austin, Texas. Mona Vie removed the case to the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division on Dec. 16, 2011, arguing that diversity of jurisdiction existed and citing provisions of CAFA -- namely that if the damages sought by plaintiffs exceed $5 million in total, then federal court is the appropriate jurisdiction. The company's attorney, Darby Doan of Haltom & Doan in Texarkana, argued that case law requires the plaintiff to make the stipulations separate from the complaint, not within it. Mr. Doan argued that plaintiffs were attempting to "game the system" by refusing to admit that damages will be lower than the federal court threshold. "Because Oliver refuses to stipulate by admission that his damages award will be less than the jurisdictional limit, he has functionally denied that his damages claim is limited under $75,000 or $5,000,000 in aggregate, and the Court must disregard Oliver's unsworn pleading for purposes of jurisdiction," Mr. Doan wrote. "Oliver's failure to stipulate to the jurisdictional limits and attempt to game the system should not be rewarded by the Court." Judge Hickey disagreed with the defendants and stated that in Arkansas, a stipulation within a complaint can function the same as a separate stipulation, because it binds the plaintiff. Judge Hickey's May 31 order goes on to state that Arkansas law allows a plaintiff to declare an amount in controversy in order to establish jurisdiction and if the plaintiff does so, the declaration is binding. Judge Hickey's order is consistent with an August 2011 order entered by District Judge Paul K. Holmes II in McClendon v. Chubb Corp., which found that the amount-in-controversy stipulation is valid even if included in its complaint rather than in a separate stipulation. Judge Holmes noted that an Arkansas plaintiff can plead damages specifically, and Arkansas law will hold the plaintiff to recovery below the federal jurisdictional threshold. In contrast, Judge Hickey's ruling is counter to District Judge Jimm Hendren's May 29 ruling in Thatcher v. Hanover Ins. Group Inc. In that case, Judge Hendren ruled that the plaintiffs need a separate affidavit or stipulation in order for the amount in controversy to be binding. "Ad damnum clauses and disclaimers within a complaint are inadequate to cap the amount in controversy below the minimum for removal jurisdiction," Judge Hendren wrote. In each of the cases, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs could return to Miller County Circuit Court and amend their complaint asking for a higher amount of damages. Judge Hickey addressed the issue in Oliver, noting that the plaintiff's responses to questions about the amount-in-controversy issue are vague and "could equate to a refusal to admit being bound to the pleaded amounts." However, she wrote that judicial estoppel would prevent Oliver from thwarting his stipulations once the case is back in Miller County Circuit Court. "[A]s a general matter, courts are not friendly toward parties scheming to alter jurisdiction," Judge Hickey wrote. Attorneys Goodson and Angelovich are also the lead attorneys in the McClendon and Thatcher cases. They have been accused of forum shopping and writing their complaints in a manner to keep the cases in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, which is reputed to be plaintiff- friendly. Those attorneys have made millions in fees from cases in which the defendants settled in an effort to limit escalating defense costs and extensive discovery requests in the rural court. OPNEXT INC: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Stayed in Del. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit in Delaware was stayed, according to Opnext, Inc.'s June 8, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. On March 26, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization ("Merger Agreement"), with Oclaro, Inc. ("Oclaro") and Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc., a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of Oclaro ("Merger Sub"). Under the Merger Agreement, the Company will combine our business with Oclaro through a merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company. Two putative class actions challenging the proposed merger have been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery: (1) Glenn Freedman v. Opnext, Inc., No. 7400-VCL, filed on April 5, 2012; and (2) David Berger v. Harry L. Bosco, No. 7406-VCL, filed on April 9, 2012. The defendants in each case are the Opnext Defendants and the Oclaro Defendants. Each action alleges that the Opnext Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement and that the Oclaro Defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other relief, the plaintiff in each case seeks an order enjoining the merger, attorneys' fees, damages and an accounting. On April 16, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the two actions pending before it under the caption In re Opnext, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 7400-VCL. On May 14, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action complaint alleging that the Opnext Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Company stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement and by failing to disclose all material information relating to the proposed merger, and that the Oclaro Defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties. The verified amended class action complaint seeks an order enjoining the merger, an award of attorneys' fees and other relief, including damages and an accounting. On May 16, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order staying the actions before it in deference to the action pending before the Alameda County Superior Court. The Company says additional lawsuits may be filed against it and/or members of its Board in connection with the proposed merger. One of the conditions to the closing of the merger is that no order, injunction, decree or other legal restraint or prohibition shall be in effect that prevents completion of the merger. Consequently, if a settlement or other resolution is not reached in the lawsuits and the plaintiffs secure injunctive or other relief prohibiting, delaying or otherwise adversely affecting the defendants' ability to complete the merger, then such injunctive or other relief may prevent the merger from becoming effective within the expected time frame or at all. OPNEXT INC: Plaintiffs Amend "Zilberberg" Class Suit Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit filed an amended complaint last month, Opnext, Inc. disclosed in its June 8, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. On March 26, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization ("Merger Agreement"), with Oclaro, Inc. ("Oclaro") and Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc., a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of Oclaro ("Merger Sub"). Under the Merger Agreement, the Company will combine our business with Oclaro through a merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company. Five putative class actions challenging the proposed merger have been filed in Alameda County Superior Court: (1) Martin Zilberberg v. Charles J. Abbe, No RG12623460, filed on March 28, 2012; (2) Eleanor Welty v. Harry L. Bosco, Case No. RG12624240, filed on April 4, 2012; (3) Todd Wright v. Harry L. Bosco, Case No. RG12624343, filed on April 5, 2012; (4) Stephen Greenberg v. Charles J. Abbe, No. RG12624444, also filed on April 5, 2012; and (5) Mark Graf v. Opnext, Inc., No. RG12624798, filed on April 9, 2012. The defendants in each case are the Company, and the members of the Company's Board (collectively, the "Opnext Defendants"), Oclaro and Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc. (collectively, the "Oclaro Defendants"). Each action alleges that the Opnext Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement. Each action further alleges that the Oclaro Defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other relief, the plaintiff in each case seeks an order enjoining the merger and attorneys' fees. All of the actions except for the Graf action seek damages and an accounting. On April 25, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court consolidated all five cases pending before it under the caption Zilberberg v. Abbe, Lead Case No. RG12623460. On May 14, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint alleging that the Opnext Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Company stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement and by failing to disclose all material information relating to the proposed merger, and that the Oclaro Defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties. The consolidated amended class action complaint seeks an order enjoining the merger, an award of attorneys' fees and other relief, including damages and an accounting. The Company says additional lawsuits may be filed against it and/or members of its Board in connection with the proposed merger. One of the conditions to the closing of the merger is that no order, injunction, decree or other legal restraint or prohibition shall be in effect that prevents completion of the merger. Consequently, if a settlement or other resolution is not reached in the lawsuits and the plaintiffs secure injunctive or other relief prohibiting, delaying or otherwise adversely affecting the defendants' ability to complete the merger, then such injunctive or other relief may prevent the merger from becoming effective within the expected time frame or at all. PINNACLE FOODS: Vermont Community Law Center Files class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Dobbs, writing for VTDigger, reports that the Vermont Community Law Center on June 19 filed a class action lawsuit against Pinnacle Foods Group, a national food corporation, alleging that the company's products are misleadingly packaged and labeled in violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act. The case focuses on two products: Log Cabin syrup and Bird's Eye Super Sweet Corn. Both are labeled as "All Natural," but the Vermont Community Law Center and Law for Food, a group working with them on the case, say the ingredients aren't natural at all. "You have to do some significant research to find out where xanthan gum, for example, comes from, but it comes from corn powder. It's highly processed and, by definition, synthetic," said Kenneth Miller of Law for Food. The lawsuit says that xanthan gum, an ingredient in Log Cabin syrup, is recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a synthetic substance. "By information and belief, [Pinnacle Foods Group's] products including the Birds Eye frozen corn products and Log Cabin syrup contain ingredients that are highly processed and derived from corn, rice or soy all of which are likely derived from genetically engineered . . . sources," the lawsuit states. At a press conference announcing the lawsuit, Jared Carter, managing attorney at the Vermont Consumer Litigation Center, and Mr. Miller presented an example of the Log Cabin syrup. Sometimes sold in "an opaque, tan plastic jug with a small round handle and a non-funtional 'pour-spout' lip," Log Cabin syrup could present a confusing choice to consumers, who are accustomed to seeing genuine Vermont maple syrup in such jugs. In response to a request for comment, Elizabeth Rowland, a Pinnacle Foods representative, said in an e-mail, "Although we have heard about a pending lawsuit, we have yet to be served and have not received any information." Mr. Miller said the packaging and marketing of Pinnacle Foods Group's products also hurts Vermont sugarers. "Side by side, as it is with Vermont maple syrup, it's much cheaper. So they're undercutting Vermont producers, and in the end you can call it a lot of things, but we're protecting consumers, but indirectly we're also protecting producers and promoting a fair and honest economy," he said. Of the two samples the groups presented, they said the Log Cabin syrup, which came in a slightly larger container, cost $5.99 while the genuine Vermont maple syrup cost $12.50. In 2010, after complaints from Rep. Peter Welch and the Vermont Department of Agriculture that Log Cabin syrup was not exactly "all natural," Pinnacle removed caramel coloring as an ingredient in its syrup. The lawsuit is not the only effort to fight misrepresented products. In Washington, Sen. Bernie Sanders recently announced an amendment to a Farm Bill that would allow states to require the labeling of genetically modified foods. The bill itself would not require such foods to be labeled nationwide. In the Statehouse, a bill to require the labeling of genetically modified foods stalled in the House this year. State Sen. Phillip Baruth of Chittenden County said at the press conference for the lawsuit that it may have been hindered by threat of legal action from Monsanto. "As somebody who sits on the Senate Agriculture committee, I waited eagerly this past session for a bill to come over from the House that would require labeling of genetically modified organisms within the state," he said. "That bill never made it over to us, and I won't speculate on the reasons why, but at a certain point in the session, Monsanto did issue a threat of a lawsuit and it seemed to me that the momentum for the bill outside the building picked up, and the momentum inside the building died from that point on." Sen. Baruth said he plans to introduce a labeling bill in the Senate in January and hopes that a pro-labeling Senate Agriculture committee will be able to send it to the House, who has already done a lot of work on the issue for quick passage, he said, before the final days of the session. RITE AID: Settles Store Managers' Wage & Hour Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation and its subsidiaries and plaintiffs' counsel in fifteen wage and hour collective and class action lawsuits announced on June 19 that they have reached a global settlement in these lawsuits which involve the alleged misclassification of Rite Aid's salaried assistant store managers and co-managers and seek overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs contended that overtime pay was required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the laws of certain states. Under the terms of the global settlement, which is subject to court approval, the Company has agreed to pay up to $20.9 million to resolve the allegations and avoid further distraction from litigation that has been ongoing for the past four years. The settlement amount resolves claims for damages dating back as far as 2002 for some of the settlement class members and covers more than 6,000 current and former associates. Both plaintiffs and Rite Aid believe that the proposed settlement represents a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of cases challenging Rite Aid's classification of its assistant managers and co-managers as exempt. According to Seth Lesser, lead plaintiffs' counsel, "This is an excellent result for the present and former Rite Aid assistant managers and co-managers who will benefit from it because the settlement will provide a definite and sure recovery long before any possible payment could be achieved through continued litigation. The settlement, if approved, will avoid the possibility of adverse rulings or even no recovery at all." Rite Aid believes that its previous classification of assistant managers and co-managers as exempt employees is fully compliant with applicable state and federal law. Rite Aid denies any wrongdoing in the global settlement. The settlement has been presented to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and preliminarily approved. Official forms will soon be mailed to settlement class members. Rite Aid Corporation RAD -2.50% is one of the nation's leading drugstore chains with approximately 4,700 stores in 31 states and the District of Columbia and fiscal 2012 annual revenues of $26.1 billion. Contact: RITE AID MEDIA: Susan Henderson, 717-730-7766 or RITE AID INVESTORS: Matt Schroeder, 717-214-8867 investor@riteaid.com or PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Seth Lesser, 914-934-9200 SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Indirect Flonase Buyers Must Prove Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that to participate in a class action, indirect purchasers who say SmithKline Beecham unfairly stifled generic competition to its steroid nasal spray Flonase must show that they bought the generic equivalent of Flonase when it became available, a federal judge ruled. A copy of the Memorandum in In re: Flonase Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-03301 (E.D. Pa.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/20/flonase.pdf SPORT CHALET: Faces "Bennett" Class Action Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Sport Chalet, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit commenced by Brian Bennett in California, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 1, 2012. On April 12, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled Brian Bennett v. Sport Chalet, Inc. and Sport Chalet Team Sales, Inc. (Case No. BC482472), alleging violations of the California Civil Code. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of wheelchair-bound persons located in California. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company violated California state law by failing to make certain store locations accessible to individuals with disabilities. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, unspecified amounts of damages; attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs' demands for injunctive relief claim that the features of some of the Company's California stores are not in compliance with state or federal regulations and therefore are not accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. THQ: Faces Three Securities Class Actions Over Failed uDraw ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Caoili, writing for Gamasutra, reports that three different law firms have filed class action lawsuits against THQ over allegations that the publisher violated federal securities laws with the handling of its failed uDraw franchise and GameTablet peripherals. Lawyers have come out of the woodwork to sue THQ over allegations that the company knowingly made "false and misleading statements" when informing investors about anticipated uDraw sales for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii. Despite healthy sales for uDraw's Wii game in early 2011, the company overestimated demand when it attempted to expand the franchise during the holiday season. That error resulted in over $30 million in operating losses, and THQ eventually killed the series and laid off developers who worked on the games. Atlanta law firm Holzer Holzer & Fistel earlier announced that it's investigating whether THQ failed to warn investors in a timely manner about low uDraw sales -- and now three other three firms have filed class action lawsuits making identical allegations. Class action specialist Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, shareholders litigation firm Robbins Umeda, and boutique business and securities law firm Federman & Sherwood have all filed suits against THQ on behalf of their plaintiffs with the United States District Court for the Central District of California. All of the firms seek to recover damages for shareholders who purchased THQ stock between May 2011 and February 2012. They are also all encouraging those affected shareholders to contact them and participate in the class action suit. Jeffrey Matulef, writing for Eurogamer.net, reports that the complaint was filed by Robbins Umeda in the US District Court for the Central District of California. Purportedly, THQ ignored the following: "(a) that demand for the Company's uDraw was well below internal expectations and the Company would have to take back, or provide price protection, on hundreds of thousands of uDraw units that it had sold; (b) that the uDraw for the Microsoft Xbox 360 and Sony PlayStation 3 was a failure and not being purchased by owners of those gaming systems; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects." If successful, the suit would compensate all shareholders who invested during the period covered by the lawsuit. The uDraw peripheral fell $100 million short of the publisher's expectations, with a whopping 1.4 million units left unsold. THQ CFO Paul Pucino singled out uDraw as the company's Achilles' heel a few months back during an investor Q&A. "From a contribution margin perspective, we would have doubled the profitability in the quarter were it not for uDraw. So it was something in excess of $30 million in operating loss in the quarter as a result of uDraw." This could be the latest in a long line of financial difficulties for THQ, which is in danger of being delisted from Nasdaq unless stockholders approve a reverse split at the company's next shareholder's meeting on June 29. TORO COMPANY: Still Defends Lawnmower-Related Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers in Canada filed class action litigation against The Toro Company and other defendants that (i) contains allegations under applicable Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made by the United States plaintiffs, (ii) seeks certification of a class of all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994, purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the Company and other defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs and fees, and equitable relief. No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2012. Management continues to evaluate this Canadian litigation. In the event the Company is unable to favorably resolve this litigation, management is unable to assess at this time whether this litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's annual consolidated operating results or financial condition, although an unfavorable resolution or outcome could be material to the Company's consolidated operating results for a particular period. UTI WORLDWIDE: "Precision" Antitrust Suit Still Pending in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- UTi Worldwide Inc. (along with several other global logistics providers) has been named as a defendant in a federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed on January 3, 2008, in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York (Precision Associates, Inc., et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et. al.). This lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged in various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws. No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012. The Company says it has incurred, and may in the future incur, significant legal fees and other costs in connection with governmental investigations and lawsuits. WENDY'S INT'L: Faces Employment Discrimination Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Tribune-Review reports that a Munhall woman claims in a federal class-action lawsuit filed on June 18 that Wendy's International Inc. has a policy of firing workers who become permanently disabled. Patricia Semenko, 51, claims in the lawsuit that she worked for Wendy's for about 30 years in hourly and managerial positions but was fired in January 2008 when she tried to return to work after taking a long-term disability leave for treatment of complications from her degenerative arthritis. Gregory Paul, her lawyer, said the company refuses to accommodate employees who have permanent restriction on their ability to work. A spokesman for the Dublin, Ohio, company declined comment. * Quorn Residents Mull Class Action Against Solar Panel Company --------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Moran, writing for The Transcontinental Port Augusta, reports that a group of Quorn residents are banding together to get their deposits back from a solar panel company which didn't honor its contracts. The company, based in Victoria, has not responded to e-mails or phone calls from The Transcontinental about the matter. Peter McMillan, Greg Wright and Elaine and Ernie Ash each signed contracts for solar system installation from September last year. The group had raised the issue with consumer affairs, and were advised that there are more people who had complained about the same company. ********* 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 * * *