/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120709.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 9, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 134 Headlines AETNA INSURANCE: Responds to Doctors' Class Action AUSTRALIA: Queensland Flood Victims Could Win Claims of $200,000 BLUE SHIELD: Consumer Watchdog Opposes Insurance Plan Closures BOK FIN'L: $19-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Fully Accrued in March CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action CIBER INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Colorado CYTOSPORT INC: Judge Allows Muscle Milk Class Action to Proceed FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Plea to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending GEN-PROBE INC: Sued Over Merger Deal with Hologic, Inc. HSBC USA: Mediation Still Ongoing in N.Y. Antitrust Suit HSBC USA: Still Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit LEHMAN BROTHERS: Attorney Fees in Securities Settlement Trimmed LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal in "Molina" Suit Still Pending LONE PINE: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Over 2011 IPO MERGE HEALTHCARE: Illinois Court Directs Insurer to Pay Fee Award NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Orders SEC, SWAC to Produce Documents PA CHILD CARE: Summary Judgment in Kids-for-Cash Suit Denied PANTRY INC: Dispositive Motions in MDL Litigation Still Pending PANTRY INC: Class Suit Over Card Information Use Still Stayed PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Stockholders Suit in N.J. PERRIGO COMPANY: 8 Class Cert. Applications Moved to One Court PERRIGO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in New York SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Defends Product-Related Suits in Hawaii SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Still Defends "Nishimura" Suit in Hawaii SISTERS OF MERCY: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Forced Adoptions STERLING FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over Overdraft Fees in Wash. TOSHIBA CORP: Jury Awards Damages of $87 Million in TFT-LCD Suit WALTER ENERGY: Still Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Moore" Suit WALTER ENERGY: Faces Another Securities Class Suit in Alabama WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Unit YAHOO! INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in California YAHOO! INC: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware * Large Investors May Opt Out of Class Action Over Libor ********* AETNA INSURANCE: Responds to Doctors' Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Stephanie O'Neill, writing for Southern California Public Radio, reports that about 60 California doctors are suing Aetna Insurance Company over alleged denials of medical coverage. The doctors have joined the California and Los Angeles County medical associations in a class-action lawsuit against Aetna Health of California. The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleges that Aetna routinely threatens patients with denial of coverage if they see doctors out of network -- although the plan they purchased allows them to do so. The suit also contends that the insurance company threatens member doctors with contract termination if they refer patients outside its network of providers. "We're appalled by this," said Dr. Samuel Fink, president of the Los Angeles County Medical Association. "We think when patients buy an insurance policy that the insurance company Aetna needs to adhere to the terms of that policy, and we want doctors to make health care decisions for their patients." Aetna responded with an e-mailed statement that characterizes the suit as retribution after the insurance giant recently sued several Bay Area surgical centers for egregious billing practices. "We have sued some of these same doctors and surgery centers named in this suit for their egregious billing practices in February of this year. This is a countersuit disguised as a class-action lawsuit. This is clearly retaliation against Aetna for our actions to prosecute physicians who are not looking out for our members." The statement goes on to say that Aetna's actions protect its customers against a small number of doctors who emphasize profits above patient care. "We will continue to pursue medical providers whose charges are so grossly out of line. For example, we are suing facilities and doctors who have charged: $73,536 for a kidney stone fragmentation when an average in- network charge would approximately be $7,612. $37,572 for a knee arthroscopy/ligament repair when an average in- network charge would approximately be $10,500. $15,276 for bunion surgery when an average in-network charge would approximately be $7,943. These egregious business practices, if not stopped, will continue to drive up the cost of care and health insurance for everyone." AUSTRALIA: Queensland Flood Victims Could Win Claims of $200,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Gould, writing for The Queensland Times, reports that Ipswich flood victims could win claims of $200,000 if an expected class action by Maurice Blackburn lawyers is successful. Ipswich Councillor Paul Tully said the $1 billion plus class action against the State Government would initially determine liability. About 3,500 people in Ipswich and Brisbane have registered an interest in joining the action and about 2,000 have signed funding agreements. Cr Tully said Maurice Blackburn was "planning to commence a class action in the next couple of months, subject to the finalization of their hydrological advice on the modeling of the flood". "They are confident the claims will include loss of property and property damage as well as perhaps loss of property value. People who weren't insured could possibly be putting in claims of $150,000 to $200,000. "While money doesn't buy happiness, it will make a big difference to a lot of people's lives and their families and their children." Cr Tully said Maurice Blackburn was "reasonably confident the class action will proceed and that they will win". IMF Australia is the litigation funders who are paying for the claim on behalf of the flood victims. IMF Australia executive director John Walker said his organization was looking at whether the law had been breached and to determine "firstly, whether or not the state owed a duty of care by building and operating the dam above Brisbane. And secondly, if it did owe a duty, what was the duty? That is usually defined as . . . operating the dam to the standard of a reasonably competent dam operator". "There are two experts in the US who have been engaged -- one to see whether or not the dam was operated to a standard that you could expect from a reasonably competent dam operator. The second expert is giving evidence with regard to the hydrological issues." That will enable individual home owners to understand what flooding would have occurred in their homes and to claim accordingly. "Individual properties might not have been flooded at all in some cases," Cr Tully said. "With others in single-level properties, it might have been four or five meters lower. In two-storey houses, it might have just flooded in the bottom." Commercial damage will also be claimable. Goodna resident Oswald Van Sanden said back in March he was "hopeful the lawyers can help us get some money". "I never got a penny from the insurance. I nearly had a breakdown and had to sell my house for half price," he said. Those that sign up for the class action have nothing to lose because flood victims do not have to pay for the legal proceedings. Mr Walker said he was "confident that the project will proceed". "We have got to finalize the experts' reports and finalize a list of flood victims that are part of the action," he said. "Then we will approach the State Government to see of they are interested in a negotiated settlement . . . and if they are not, then file a claim." IMF Australia is a litigation funder that is paying for a $1 billion plus class action on behalf of flood victims against the State of Queensland. BLUE SHIELD: Consumer Watchdog Opposes Insurance Plan Closures -------------------------------------------------------------- Consumer Watchdog praised Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones' announcement on July 3 opposing Blue Shield's plan to close 23 health insurance policies, and echoing concerns raised by Consumer Watchdog in a recently-filed class action lawsuit. Consumer Watchdog said, however, that as many as 100,000 Californians are still trapped in closed or lower-benefit health plans following policy closures carried out by Blue Shield's affiliate regulated by the Department of Managed Health Care in 2010. "Blue Shield is on notice that the company's plan to close health insurance policies fails to protect consumers as the law requires," said Jerry Flanagan, staff attorney for Consumer Watchdog. "If Blue Shield decides to go forward with the policy closures, we look forward to working with the company to implement a consumer-friendly plan. We also hope that Blue Shield will ensure that consumers affected by the 2010 policy closures will finally benefit from the protections mandated by law." The lawsuit filed by Consumer Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLC alleges that Blue Shield is illegally gaming the health insurance system by alternately closing older policies and opening new ones in order to push older, sicker consumers who are more expensive to insure into lower benefit, higher deductible coverage that requires consumers to pay more out of pocket. The lawsuit seeks to stop Blue Shield from shoving its policyholders into what is known as a "Death Spiral"-the industry term for what happens when a health insurer "closes" certain insurance policies to new customers, and later raises rates to those remaining in the closed policy until those enrollees can no longer afford coverage. Since consumers with preexisting conditions cannot switch to a comparable or better policy, consumers trapped in the closed policies must either accept greatly inferior coverage or face bigger and bigger premium increases. According to legislative records, it was Blue Shield's own past business practices, resulting in Death Spirals for consumers, that spurred the Legislature to adopt the same 1993 law that Consumer Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLC now allege the company has violated. The policy closures are taking place among certain insurance plans in the individual market. California law requires that when health insurers close a policy the insurer must either offer consumers new comparable coverage, or minimize rate increases on the closed policies. Two regulatory agencies -- the California Department of Managed Health Care ("DMHC") and the California Department of Insurance ("CDI") - oversee different segments of Blue Shield's insurance business. In the lawsuit, Blue Shield is accused of illegally closing eight policies regulated by the DMHC in 2010, and announcing it would close 23 policies regulated by the CDI on July 2, 2012 without offering consumers comparable policies or limiting rate increases as required by law. Consumer Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLC settled a similar class action lawsuit last year targeting Blue Cross of California's illegal Death Spiral practices. Under the terms of that settlement, Blue Cross must both offer consumers in the closed policies access to comparable coverage and limit rate increases in the closed policies if consumers choose to remain enrolled in the older, closed policy. Consumer Watchdog is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA. BOK FIN'L: $19-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Fully Accrued in March ---------------------------------------------------------------- The amount of Bok Financial Corporation's $19 million settlement to resolve class action complaints relating to its overdraft policies has been fully accrued at March 31, 2012, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In 2010, the Bank was named as a defendant in three putative class actions alleging that the manner in which the bank posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts was improper. The three actions have been consolidated for settlement purposes in Multi-District Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On November 23, 2011, the Company settled the class action lawsuits for $19 million, subject to court approval for which application has been made. Management was advised by counsel that, in its opinion, the Company's overdraft policies meet all requirements of law and the Bank has not agreed to change its overdraft practices. The Company settled the litigation to avoid further expense and distraction. The amount of the settlement was fully accrued at March 31, 2012. BOK Financial Corporation -- http://www.bokf.com/-- a financial holding company, offers a range of financial products and services to commercial and industrial customers, and other financial institutions and consumers. It operates in three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. The Company was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that Justice George Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court has dismissed a secondary market securities class action against Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce alleging that the bank misrepresented its exposure to the U.S. residential mortgage market. In Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Justice Strathy ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to obtain the required leave to proceed with the action within the three-year period mandated by the Ontario Securities Act. He did, however, state that had he not found that the limitation period had expired, he would have certified the action and allowed it to proceed to trial. Joel Rochon -- jrochon@rochongenova.com -- Peter Jervis, John Archibald -- jarchibald@rochongenova.com -- and Sakie Tambakos -- stambakos@rochongenova.com -- of Rochon Genova represented the plaintiffs. James C. Tory -- jctory@torys.com -- Sheila Block -- sblock@torys.com -- Crawford Smith -- csmith@torys.com -- and Andrew Gray -- agray@torys.com -- of Torys represented the CIBC, and Benjamin Zarnett & David Conklin of Goodmans represented the four individual defendants. CIBER INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- CIBER Inc. continues to defend itself against a securities class action complaint in Colorado, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On October 28, 2011, a putative securities class action lawsuit, Weston v. CIBER, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against CIBER, its current Chief Executive Officer David C. Peterschmidt, current Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Claude J. Pumilia and former CFO Peter H. Cheesbrough. The Class Action purports to have been filed on behalf of all holders of CIBER common stock between December 15, 2010 and August 3, 2011 by alleged stockholder and plaintiff, Burt Weston. The Class Action generally alleges that defendants CIBER, Mr. Peterschmidt, Mr. Pumilia and Mr. Cheesbrough violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Class Action Defendants disseminated or approved alleged false statements concerning the Company's outlook and forecast for fiscal year 2011 in: (1) the Company's 8-K filed with the SEC and press conference held with investors on December 15, 2010; (2) the Company's press release and earnings conference call on February 22, 2011; (3) the Company's 10-K for fiscal year 2010 filed with the SEC on February 25, 2011; and (4) the Company's press release, earnings conference call, and Form 10-Q for first quarter 2011 filed with the SEC on May 3, 2011. The complaint also generally alleges that the Class Action Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Class Action Defendants acted as controlling persons of CIBER within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by reason of their positions with the Company. The Class Action seeks, among other things: (1) an order from the Court declaring the complaint to be a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying plaintiff as a representative of the purported class; (2) awarding plaintiff and the members of the class damages, including interest; (3) awarding plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; and (4) awarding such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Court appointed Mr. Weston and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and the law firms of Robbins, Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Robbins Umeda LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel on January 31, 2012. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in early April 2012. The Class Action Defendants expected to respond to the consolidated complaint in early May. The Company believes that the Class Action is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. There can, however, be no assurance of the outcome of these actions. CIBER, Inc. -- http://www.ciber.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provides information technology (IT), business consulting, and outsourcing services in North America, Europe, and the Asia/Pacific. It offers its solutions to energy and utilities, telecommunications, retail, healthcare, financial services, entertainment, and manufacturing industries. The Company was founded in 1974 and is headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado. CYTOSPORT INC: Judge Allows Muscle Milk Class Action to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Baron and Budd disclosed that on June 28, 2012 a federal judge in California ruled that a false advertising class action challenging the statements "Healthy, Sustained Energy" and "healthy fats," as made on the popular Muscle Milk(R) line of products, can proceed. The lawsuit alleges that these advertising representations, which are prominently featured on packaging for the products, are false and misleading because the products contain unhealthy ingredients, including fat, saturated fat and added sugars. Baron and Budd attorneys Roland Tellis and Mark Pifko in the firm's Los Angeles office serve as counsel in the lawsuit. (Delacruz v. CytoSport, Inc., United States District Court, Northern District of California, case no. 4:11-cv-03532-CW) According to the lawsuit, the central message of the Muscle Milk(R) advertising campaign is that the products are not loaded with unhealthy fats and added sugars, and that consuming Muscle Milk(R) provides a wide range of significant nutritional benefits. This message, however, is false and misleading, the lawsuit alleges. Last summer, CytoSport, Inc., the maker of Muscle Milk(R) products, received a warning letter from the FDA, asserting that the company violated a number of FDA regulations. Among other things, the FDA's letter said that the labels made unauthorized claims that Muscle Milk(R) products were "healthy." Specifically, Muscle Milk(R) products violated FDA regulations because products cannot be labeled "healthy" unless they are low-fat and low in saturated fat. According to the FDA's letter, Muscle Milk(R) products exceeded permissible levels of fat and saturated fat. In finding that the "Healthy, Sustained Energy" representation on Muscle Milk(R) products was an actionable misrepresentation, the Court explained that the statement conveys that the products are a "healthy source of energy and thus, may imply that they do not contain an unhealthy amount of fat and saturated fat." Additionally, in an order issued back in April, the Court found that CytoSport's "healthy fats" representation on the bottle of its Ready-to-Drink Muscle Milk(R) product could be false and misleading to consumers because a "reasonable consumer would be likely to believe that the drink contains unsaturated, not saturated fats. The drink container also states that it is a 'nutritional shake.'" The Court explained that this representation "contributes to a sufficient claim of deceptive product labeling," and "the injury to the consumer class as a whole could be substantial, even if the injury to individual consumers is minimal. No benefit is served by false and misleading advertising." "We are pleased with the Court's ruling," said attorney Mark Pifko. "It is an important step towards our client's goal of holding CytoSport accountable for its false and misleading representations. CytoSport is capitalizing on a health and wellness trend among consumers who are prepared to pay more for products offering a wide range of nutritional benefits. But, you can't just whip-up a blend of saturated fat, fractionated oil and added sugars, and slap a 'healthy' label on it." In the past few years, other false advertising challenges have been asserted against CytoSport, including a case alleging that the company materially misrepresented the amount of cholesterol and carbohydrates in the products, and a challenge arguing that Muscle Milk(R) was falsely and deceptively marketed because, despite the name, the product does not contain milk, but this is the first such case to move past the company's legal challenges. To learn more about the Muscle Milk(R) lawsuit, contact Baron and Budd at 1.866.844.4556 or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.baronandbudd.com FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Plea to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Falconstor Software, Inc., continues to await a court order on its motion to dismiss a consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought by Company shareholders. The other defendants are James Weber, our former CFO and Vice President for Operations, and the estate of ReiJane Huai. Mr. Huai was the Company's former Chairman, President and CEO. The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants defrauded shareholders by falsely certifying in the Company's SEC filings that they had disclosed any fraud, whether or not material, that involved management or other employees who had a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants were in fact aware of fraud. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Certain of the defendants may be entitled to indemnification by the Company under the laws of Delaware and/or the Company by-laws. The Company cannot predict when the Class Action will be resolved or its outcome. While the Company has insurance policies that it believes covers the Company for the allegations of the Class Action, there can be no assurance that the amount of insurance will be adequate to cover the costs of its defense of the Class Action or any damages that might be awarded against the Company or any defendant(s) to whom the Company owes indemnification. The Company's insurers may deny coverage under the policies. If the plaintiffs are awarded damages and the Company's insurance is not adequate to cover the amounts, or its insurers deny coverage, the amounts to be paid by the Company could have a significant negative impact on the Company's financial results, its cash flow and its cash reserves. Headquartered in Melville, New York, FalconStor Software, Inc. -- http://www.falconstor.com/-- develops, manufactures, and sells network storage software solutions; and provides the related maintenance, implementation, and engineering services worldwide. The Company was founded in 1989. GEN-PROBE INC: Sued Over Merger Deal with Hologic, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------- Two purported class action complaints, one in California and the other in Delaware, have been commenced against Gen-Probe Incorporated relating to its merger agreement with Hologic, Inc., the Company disclosed in its May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On April 29, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Hologic, Inc. and Gold Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hologic, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned subsidiary of Hologic. Upon the effective time of the Merger, each outstanding share of the Company's common stock (other than shares held by any stockholders who are entitled to and who properly exercise appraisal rights under Delaware law, treasury shares, and shares held by the Company, Hologic, Merger Sub or any of their respective subsidiaries) will be canceled and converted into the right to receive $82.75 in cash, without interest, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. Consummation of the Merger is subject to various conditions. The Company expects the Merger to close in the second half of 2012. In the days following the announcement that the Company had entered into the Merger Agreement with Hologic and Merger Sub, purported stockholders of the company filed two lawsuits in connection with the proposed transaction, the first lawsuit, captioned Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund v. Gen-Probe Incorporated, et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego against the Company, its directors and Hologic, and the second lawsuit, captioned Timothy Coyne v. Gen-Probe Incorporated, et al., or the Delaware Action, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors, Hologic and Merger Sub. Both actions were brought as putative class actions and allege that the Company's directors breached certain alleged fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by approving the Merger Agreement, and that Hologic and/or Merger Sub aided and abetted those breaches. The complaints request an injunction of the transaction. The Delaware Action also seeks damages in the event the transaction is completed. The Company believes that each of these actions is without merit. Gen-Probe Incorporated is involved in the development, manufacture and marketing of rapid, accurate and cost-effective molecular diagnostic products and services that are used primarily to diagnose human diseases, screen donated human blood, and ensure transplant compatibility. Its leading clinical diagnostics products include our APTIMA family of assays that are used to detect the common STDs chlamydia and gonorrhea, certain high-risk strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, and Trichomonas vaginalis, the parasite that causes trichomoniasis. HSBC USA: Mediation Still Ongoing in N.Y. Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Mediation is still ongoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit filed against banks, including, HSBC USA Inc., and Visa Inc. and MasterCard Incorporated in connection with supracompetitive levels of merchant discount fees paid by retailers currently pending in a New York federal court, according to HSBC's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and MasterCard Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York: Photos Etc. Corp. et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and American Booksellers Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV- 5391 (JG)). Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws. These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009. On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Bank USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the Agreements) that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA and its affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these actions. The Agreements also cover any other potential or future actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720. While the Company continues to believe that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims in this action, the parties are engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the District Court. Based on progress to date in mediation, the Company increased its litigation reserves in the fourth quarter of 2011 to an amount equal to its estimated portion of a potential settlement of this matter. HSBC USA: Still Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC USA, Inc., continues to await a court decision on its motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and HSBC North America on behalf of a putative nationwide class and New York sub-class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft fees due to the posting of debit card transactions to deposit accounts in high-to-low order. Levin asserts claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York deceptive acts and practices statute. The plaintiffs dismissed the Federal court action after the case was transferred to the multi-district litigation pending in Miami, Florida, and re-filed the case in New York state court on March 1, 2011. The action, captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11), alleges a variety of common law claims and violations on behalf of a New York class, including breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment and a violation of the New York deceptive acts and practices statute. HSBC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2011, oral argument was held in November 2011, and the Company is currently awaiting the court's decision. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the liability, if any, that might arise as a result of this action and will defend the claims vigorously. LEHMAN BROTHERS: Attorney Fees in Securities Settlement Trimmed --------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in Manhattan has cut 31% from the fees sought by two law firms that won $516 million in securities settlements for Lehman Brothers investors last year. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check were awarded $56.7 million in fees, down from the $82.6 million they had claimed. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan cited the work of a bankruptcy examiner who unearthed the bank's alleged use of an accounting gimmick among reasons for reducing the award. "We live in hard times," Judge Kaplan wrote in an order on June 29. "A fee in excess of $82 million, reflecting about 2.18 times the notional reasonable value of the services rendered, even granting that some premium over the lodestar is appropriate, simply seems too much." Lodestar is a court term for an attorney's hours multiplied by their hourly rate. In a successful class action, lawyers routinely seek a contingency fee that is more than what they would have billed for their work. Max Berger -- mwb@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein Litowitz and David Kessler -- dkessler@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz, did not respond to requests for comment on July 2. The plaintiffs recovered $426 million in a settlement last year with Lehman underwriters, which included Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley. Another $90 million came from a settlement with former Lehman executives, including former CEO Richard Fuld, that was funded through insurance. In a three-page order, Judge Kaplan said the lawyers did a "great deal of work." But he said they benefited from a "quite extraordinary" March 2010 report by Lehman Brothers bankruptcy examiner and Jenner & Block partner Anton Valukas. After that report, Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz added allegations to their own lawsuit. Judge Kaplan, who last year largely denied a motion to dismiss the suit because of those allegations, said the lawyers were right to add that new material. "But the fact remains that this very significant factor in the denial of much of the motions to dismiss and, doubtless, on the price defendants eventually paid to settle, was the product of the examiner's efforts." Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz had also said in their fee request the $516 million represented 13 percent of the $3.3 billion in statutory damages, according to the decision. But Judge Kaplan said there was no hint investors would recover even a third of what could reasonably be recovered had the lawsuit moved forward. And he said the he was "bound in good conscience" to question a fee resulting in a rate of more than $900 an hour. The case is In re: Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-05523. LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal in "Molina" Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Lexmark International Inc.'s appeal from a $7.8 million award to class members and a $5.7 million award in attorneys' fees in the lawsuit captioned Molina v. Lexmark, remains pending, according to the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012. On August 31, 2005, former Company employee Ron Molina filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued. This statute has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose" vacation policies. The class is comprised of less than 200 current and former California employees of the Company. The trial was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. On May 1, 2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to a conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and personal choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated California law. In a Statement of Decision, received by the Company on August 27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the class members approximately $8.3 million in damages which included waiting time penalties and interest but did not include post judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On November 17, 2010, the trial court Judge partially granted the Company's motion for a new trial solely as to the argument that current employees are not entitled to any damages. On March 7, 2011, the trial court Judge reduced the original award to $7.8 million. On October 28, 2011, the trial court Judge awarded the class members $5.7 million in attorneys' fees. The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and attorneys' fees. The appeal is pending. The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is probable. The range of potential loss related to this matter is subject to a high degree of estimation. In accordance with the accounting guidance for contingencies, if the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. Because no amount within the range of potential loss is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company has accrued $1.8 million for the Molina matter, which represents the low-end of the range. At the high-end of the range, the class has sought $16.7 million in damages along with $5.7 million in attorneys' fees, plus post judgment interest. Thus, it is reasonably possible that a loss exceeding the $1.8 million already accrued may be incurred in this matter, ranging from $0 to $22.4 million, excluding post judgment interest, costs and any additional attorneys' fees which may be assessed against the Company. Established in 1991, Lexmark International, Inc. -- http://www.lexmark.com/-- is a developer, manufacturer and supplier of printing, imaging and document workflow solutions for the office. The Company also operates in the office imaging and ECM markets. Lexmark's products include laser printers, inkjet printers, multifunction devices, dot matrix printers and associated supplies, solutions and services and ECM software solutions and services. LONE PINE: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Over 2011 IPO ---------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on July 3 disclosed that it has filed the first federal class action against Lone Pine Resources, Inc. alleging that Lone Pine made false statements of material facts in its prospectus issued in connection with the Company's May 26, 2011 initial public offering. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 4, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To join the Lone Pine class action, visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The action filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose in its IPO documents that the Company was facing significantly increased costs and disruption in production volumes attributed to a major oil sales pipeline rupture in late April 2011 and a large forest fire in the same area in Mid-May. When the market learned of this adverse information, the price of Lone Pine dropped damaging investors. If you purchased Lone Pine stock on or after May 26, 2011, you may join the class action to recover your investment losses. To join the class action, please visit the Web site at http://rosenlegal.com You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. MERGE HEALTHCARE: Illinois Court Directs Insurer to Pay Fee Award ----------------------------------------------------------------- An Illinois federal court ordered insurers of Merge Healthcare Incorporated to pay for the Company's portion of a fee award judgment in a stockholder class action complaint related to the acquisition of AMICAS Inc., according to Merge Healthcare's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In January 2010, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts in connection with AMICAS' proposed acquisition by Thoma Bravo, LLC. A second similar action was filed in the same court in February 2010 and consolidated with the first action. In March 2010, because AMICAS had terminated the Thoma Bravo Merger and agreed to be acquired by Merge Healthcare, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as moot. Subsequently, counsel for the plaintiffs filed an application for approximately $5,000 of attorneys' fees for its work on this case, which fee petition AMICAS opposed. Merge Healthcare retained litigation counsel to defend against the fee petition. On December 23, 2010, the court awarded plaintiffs approximately $3,200 in attorneys' fees and costs. AMICAS has appealed this judgment. Merge Healthcare previously tendered the defense in this matter to its appropriate insurers, which provided coverage against the claims asserted against AMICAS. After receipt of the court's attorneys' fee award decision, the insurer denied policy coverage for approximately $2,500 of the fee award. Merge Healthcare does not believe that the insurer's denial has merit and have retained counsel to contest it. On June 6, 2011, the insurer filed an action against AMICAS and Merge Healthcare in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking a declaration that it is not responsible for the $2,500 portion of the judgment rendered on December 4, 2010 by the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Merge Healthcare filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the insurer must pay the full amount of the Superior Court's fee award, plus additional damages. On April 30, 2012, the Northern District of Illinois federal court ruled in favor of Merge Healthcare's Motion for Summary Judgment in the insurer's underlying declaratory judgment action. The court ordered the insurer to pay the Massachusetts court judgment plus interest. The insurer had until May 30, 2012 to appeal that court's ruling. Merge Healthcare asserts that it continues to vigorously assert all of its rights under its applicable insurance policies, which it believes cover the claims and expenses incurred by AMICAS or Merge Healthcare in connection with the fee award. The Company, however, acknowledges that an adverse outcome could negatively impact its financial condition and cash flow. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Merge Healthcare Incorporated -- http://www.merge.com/-- provides healthcare information technology solutions in the United States and internationally. Its software solutions automate healthcare data and diagnostic workflow to create an electronic record of the patient experience. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Orders SEC, SWAC to Produce Documents ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon Solomon, writing for The Birmingham News, reports that an Alabama federal judge recently ordered the SEC and SWAC to produce excerpts of their television and licensing contracts to ex-college athletes in a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA. But the ruling fell short of what the players sought. For months, lawyers representing players such as Ed O'Bannon, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Tyrone Prothro and others have wrestled with conferences, schools and TV networks to acquire discovery against the NCAA, Collegiate Licensing Company and Electronic Arts, Inc. The players claim the NCAA and those companies violate federal antitrust laws by preventing players from getting paid based off their name and likeness even after leaving college. U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins ruled June 15 in Alabama that within 30 days the SEC and SWAC must provide excerpts from football and men's basketball TV and licensing contracts since 2002. Those excerpts are limited to mentions of publicity or image rights for athletes and must identify the parties and sports involved in the particular agreement. Chris Hellums, a Birmingham attorney working for the players, said the plaintiffs believe the documents will show former and current SEC players possess the same lack of rights to their own images as those in other major conferences. "That is a very important concept for the next major battle in the case, demonstrating that players and former players have enough in common so that it makes sense for the trial to occur on behalf of all players, not just a few individuals," Mr. Hellums said via e-mail. The players had also sought SEC documents for two other categories -- a summary of TV distribution rights and non-privileged documents concerning negotiations of contract provisions. The Big Ten Network and Fox agreed in California court to provide a summary of distribution rights without compromising confidential terms. That won't be the case for the SEC. Judge Hopkins ruled in Alabama that those Big Ten documents were voluntarily offered in the compromise and not required by the court. Mr. Hellums said the players were interested in those SEC documents to see if the filing of the O'Bannon lawsuit in 2009 affected any subsequent negotiations of media contracts. Previously-obtained information from SEC schools via other subpoenas have helped explain how the contracts operate, Mr. Hellums said. "It would have been nice to see those (SEC) documents," Mr. Hellums said. "But we are quite clear on all that matters, the end result -- players and former players do not share in the ever-increasing tremendous value that they generate for their schools, conferences, as well as television networks and numerous other entities." Prior to the court order, the SEC had produced over 1,000 pages of documents to the players, such as consent forms athletes must sign for use of their image and likeness, Mr. Hellums said. An attorney representing the SEC declined to comment. It's estimated the college licensing business takes in $4.5 billion annually. The NCAA has said it is "pure fiction" to claim the NCAA profits from athletes' likeness, arguing it does not license the likeness of athletes or prevent ex-athletes from attempting to do so. The SEC claimed in court documents that broadcasts of games are not "products" and don't violate any name and likeness rights of current or former college athletes. For instance, SEC lawyers wrote that if Gatorade wanted to use video of Peyton Manning in college to promote its product, Gatorade would have to license rights through Mr. Manning and license the copyright to the video from the copyright holder. Mr. Hellums said the players' lawyers are analyzing approximately 1 million pages of documents, including more than 600,000 pages from the NCAA. NCAA personnel are currently being deposed. Mr. Hellums anticipates the same for SEC officials after obtaining the remaining SEC documents by July 15. Judge Hopkins denied the SWAC's motion to quash the subpoena and provide no documents. Because of the breadth of information obtained through rulings and negotiations, Mr. Hellums said the O'Bannon trial date has been moved from March 2013 to February 2014. That will allow time to review the evidence and for the court to make several key rulings, including class certification, Mr. Hellums said. Electronic Arts, the video-game maker of college football and basketball games, unsuccessfully tried to get out of the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken recently ruled in California that EA's licensing agreement with the NCAA doesn't refute the players' allegations. Part of EA's licensing agreement agrees that it will "not encourage or participate in any activity that would cause an athlete or an institution to violate" the NCAA's rules. Judge Wilken concluded that doesn't distinguish between former and current athletes and "can be fairly read" as evidence of a "meeting of the minds" between the defendants to not compensate ex-college athletes. PA CHILD CARE: Summary Judgment in Kids-for-Cash Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Citizens Voice reports that a federal judge denied motions for summary judgment in the class-action civil-rights actions filed in the kids-for-cash scandal on July 3. The 1,050 plaintiffs in the case, former juvenile offenders who claim they were illegally incarcerated and/or denied their right to counsel, sought summary judgment without trial against companies and individuals connected to two for-profit juvenile detention centers at the heart of the scandal. Those defendants also sought summary judgment in a counter-motion. Both requests were denied on July 3 by U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo. Two former Luzerne County judges are serving lengthy prison terms for accepting payments for placing juveniles in the centers. The builder of the centers, Robert K. Mericle, has already agreed to a $17.75 million settlement stemming from his role in the payments. The agreement is awaiting approval from Mr. Caputo. Mr. Caputo ruled the case against the other defendants should proceed because questions remain about the roles played by the companies that own the centers, PA Child Care LLC and Western PA Child LLC, the firm that operates them, Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp., and the former partners in all three companies, Robert J. Powell and Gregory Zappala. Mr. Zappala, who was not charged in the case, has taken over Mr. Powell's interest in the companies. Mr. Powell is serving an 18- month prison sentence. PANTRY INC: Dispositive Motions in MDL Litigation Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Pantry, Inc., continues to await a federal court's order on dispositive motions it filed in a consolidated class action complaint over fuel temperature, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2012. Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country against numerous companies in the petroleum industry. Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the industry have been named as defendants in these lawsuits. Initially, the Company was named as a defendant in eight of these cases, three of which have been dismissed without prejudice. The Company remains as a defendant in five cases: one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv- 00091-FL, filed 3/7/07); one in Alabama (Cook,et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 2:07-cv-750-WKW-CSC, filed 8/22/07); one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07); one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed 7/13/07); and one in South Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed 9/24/07). Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of the cases, including those in which the Company is named, have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy. These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices. In certain of the cases, including some of the cases in which the Company is named, plaintiffs also have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons, defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than they paid on the same gallon of fuel. The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and punitive damages. Both types of cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment interest. The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21, 2008. A number of the defendants, including the Company, subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable "political questions." The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and defendants request to appeal that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31, 2010. In May 2010, in a lawsuit (Kansas case) in which the Company is not a party, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class for damages. Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision to the Tenth Circuit in June 2010, and that request was denied on August 31, 2010. On November 12, 2011, Defendants in the Kansas case filed a motion to decertify the Kansas classes in light of a new favorable U.S. Supreme Court decision. On January 19, 2012, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion to decertify and granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class as to liability and injunctive relief aspects of Plaintiffs' claims. The court has continued to deny certification of a damages class. The Kansas case is set for trial in August 2012. The Company has filed dispositive motions in each of the cases in which it has been sued. At this stage of proceedings, the Company cannot estimate its ultimate loss or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of any potential liability, including, without limitation: (i) whether defendants are required, or even permitted under state law, to sell temperature adjusted gallons of motor fuel and/or disclose the temperature of the fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual temperature of fuel purchased by plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or not class certification is proper in cases to which the Company is a party. An unfavorable outcome in this litigation could have a material effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.pantry.com/-- operates a chain of convenience stores in the southeastern United States. The Company's stores offer a selection of merchandise, fuel, and ancillary products and services. Its merchandise products include cigarettes, grocery and other tobacco products, packaged beverages, beer, and wine. The Company operates stores under various selected banners, which primarily include Kangaroo Express. The Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Cary, North Carolina. PANTRY INC: Class Suit Over Card Information Use Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Pantry Inc. disclosed in its May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2012, that a class action complaint against it over the use of information on debit and credit card receipts remains stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's action in a standing case vs. First American Financial Corp. On October 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit against The Pantry in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v. Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W). On September 9, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed adding Enger McConnell on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs seek class action status and allege that The Pantry included more information than is permitted on electronically printed credit and debit card receipts in willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g). The amended complaint alleges that: (i) plaintiff Patrick Amason seeks to represent a subclass of those class members as to whom the Company printed receipts containing the first four and last four digits of their credit and/or debit card numbers; and (ii) Plaintiff Enger McConnell seeks to represent a subclass of those class members as to whom the Company printed receipts containing all digits of their credit and/or debit card numbers. The plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice. On July 25, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' initial motion for class certification but granted the plaintiffs the right to file an amended motion. On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification seeking to certify two classes. The first purported class, represented by Mr. Amason, consists of (A) all natural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used at an in-store point of sale owned or operated by the Company from June 4, 2009 through the date of the final judgment in the action, (B) where the transaction was in a Company store located in the State of Alabama; and (C) in connection with the transaction, a receipt was printed by Retalix software containing the first four and last four digits of the credit/debit card number on the receipt provided to the customer. The second purported class, represented by Ms. McConnell, consists of (A) all natural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used at an in-store point of sale owned or operated by the Company from June 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment in the action, and (B) in connection with the transaction, a receipt was printed containing all of the digits of the credit/debit card numbers on the receipt provided to the customer. The Company opposed the motion for class certification, and also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing or alternatively to stay the case until the Supreme Court of the United States rules in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards (the "Edwards case"), another case involving a standing issue. On January 19, 2012, the Court issued an order staying the case until a decision is issued in the Edwards case, and subsequently administratively terminated plaintiffs' motion for class certification, subject to plaintiffs' right to refile the motion after the stay is removed. The Company says that at this stage of the proceedings, it cannot reasonably estimate its ultimate loss or liability, if any, related to this lawsuit because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of our potential liability, including, without limitation: (i) whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims; (ii) whether a class or classes will be certified; (iii) if a class or classes are certified, the identity and number of the putative class members; and (iv) if a class or classes are certified, the resolution of certain unresolved statutory interpretation issues that may impact the size of the putative class(es) and whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages. An unfavorable outcome in this litigation could have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.pantry.com/-- operates a chain of convenience stores in the southeastern United States. The Company's stores offer a selection of merchandise, fuel, and ancillary products and services. Its merchandise products include cigarettes, grocery and other tobacco products, packaged beverages, beer, and wine. The Company operates stores under various selected banners, which primarily include Kangaroo Express. The Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Cary, North Carolina. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Stockholders Suit in N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. continues to defend itself against a second amended complaint over the restatement of its financial statements, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006. The lawsuits followed the Company's July 5, 2006 announcement regarding the restatement of certain of the Company's financial statements and allege that certain members of the Company's then management engaged in violations of the Exchange Act, by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition and results of operations. The consolidated class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 23, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff. The co- lead plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. After class discovery, both co-lead plaintiffs withdrew and a new lead plaintiff, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement fund (LAMPERS) and its counsel, Berman DeValerio, were substituted in as lead plaintiff and new lead counsel. LAMPERS have filed a motion for class certification which, after additional class discovery, has been fully briefed, but no argument date has been set. The Company and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated class action. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. operates primarily through its wholly owned subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., in two business segments. Its generic products division, Par Pharmaceutical, develops (including through third party development arrangements and product acquisitions), manufactures and distributes generic pharmaceuticals in the United States. Its branded products division, Strativa Pharmaceuticals, manufactures and distributes branded pharmaceuticals in the United States. PERRIGO COMPANY: 8 Class Cert. Applications Moved to One Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Eight applications to certify a class action lawsuit in Israel against Perrigo Company relating to the thyroid drug, Eltroxin, have been transferred to one presiding court, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by Aspen and distributed by the Company in Israel. The respondents include Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline (Israel) Ltd, and health care providers who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health care system in Israel. There is also a motion to approve a service to Aspen Bad Oldesloe GMBH, Germany, of one of the applications. The applications arise from the launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally allege that patients were not notified in a timely manner about the change in the formulation, about the potential for adverse events while transferring to the new formulation of Eltroxin and the need to perform blood tests after changing to the new formulation. The applications also generally allege that the failure to timely provide such notifications resulted in: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) injuries to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patient's lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation. Eight applications were transferred to one court which will decide whether to consolidate the applications and/or dismiss some of the applications. As the matter is in its early stages, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if any, associated with these claims. Perrigo Company is a healthcare supplier that develops, manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and generic prescription (Rx) pharmaceuticals, infant formulas, nutritional products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API). The Company's primary markets and locations of manufacturing and logistics operations are the United States, Israel, Mexico, the United Kingdom and Australia. PERRIGO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company continues to defend a shareholder class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named Michael L. Warner filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, including the President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief Financial Officer, Judy Brown, among others. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff generally alleged that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose, prior to February 3, 2009, that certain auction rate securities or ARS held by the Company, totaling approximately $18,000 in par value, had been purchased from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. The plaintiff asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as the seller of the ARS was material because after Lehman's bankruptcy filing, on September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly became unable to look to Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price near par value. The complaint sought unspecified damages and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief, along with costs and attorneys' fees. On June 15, 2009, the Court appointed several purported shareholders of the Company, namely CLAL Finance Batucha Investment Management, Ltd., The Phoenix Insurance Company, Ltd., Excellence Nessuah Mutual Funds Management, Ltd. and Excellence Nessuah Gemel & Pension, Ltd., as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On July 31, 2009, these Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped all claims against the individual defendants other than Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, and added a "control person" claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the Company's Audit Committee. The amended complaint asserted many of the same claims and allegations as the original pleading. It also alleged that the Company should have disclosed, prior to February 3, 2009, that Lehman had sold the ARS to the Company and had provided the allegedly inflated valuation of the ARS that the Company adopted in its Form 10-Q filing for the first quarter of fiscal 2009, which was filed with the SEC on November 6, 2008. The amended complaint also alleged that some portion of the write-down of the value of the ARS that the Company recognized in the second quarter of fiscal 2009 should have been taken in the prior quarter, immediately following Lehman's bankruptcy filing. On September 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants. On September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the "control person" claims against the members of the Company's Audit Committee, but denied the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims and defendants. On October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the Co-Lead Plaintiffs (who were the only plaintiffs named in the amended complaint) lacked standing to sue under the U.S. securities laws following a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act does not apply extraterritorially to the claims of foreign investors who purchased or sold securities on foreign stock exchanges. On December 23, 2010, a shareholder named Harel Insurance, Ltd. filed a motion to intervene as an additional named plaintiff. Although Harel is a non-U.S. investor, it claims to have purchased the Company's common stock on a U.S. exchange. On January 10, 2011, the original plaintiff, Warner, filed a motion renewing his previously withdrawn motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff to replace the Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed motion to dismiss. The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the then- Co-Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) ruled that any class that might ultimately be certified could only consist of persons who purchased their Perrigo shares on the NASDAQ market or by other means involving transactions in the United States; (iii) granted Harel's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, subject to the filing by Harel of an amended complaint alleging that Harel's purchases of Perrigo stock were made in the United States; (iv) ruled that Warner would be treated as a named plaintiff; and (v) left for later the selection of Lead Plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both Harel and Warner as named plaintiffs, alleging the same claims as in the amended complaint but on behalf of a purported class limited to those who purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market or by other means involving transactions in the United States. The second amended complaint alleges that Harel purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market during the purported class period. Also on October 7, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation seeking to appoint Harel and Warner as the new co-lead plaintiffs, subject to approval of the Court. On October 27, 2011, the Court approved the stipulation and issued an order appointing Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs. On November 21, 2011, the defendants answered the second amended complaint, denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting numerous defenses. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and is actively pursuing its defense. The Company believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations as reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Perrigo Company is a healthcare supplier that develops, manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and generic prescription (Rx) pharmaceuticals, infant formulas, nutritional products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API). The Company?s primary markets and locations of manufacturing and logistics operations are the United States, Israel, Mexico, the United Kingdom and Australia. SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Defends Product-Related Suits in Hawaii -------------------------------------------------------------- Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., continues to defend itself from lawsuits related to its strap tie holdown products, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. Four lawsuits have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 ("Case 1"); Ke Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM ("Case 2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06 VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 ("Case 4"). Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009. Cases 2 and 3 were originally filed on June 30, 2009. Case 4 was filed on August 19, 2009. The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, allegedly causing property damage. Case 1 is a class action brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses. Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed with a new representative plaintiff. Case 2 is an action by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the Company, claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility to corrosion in certain environments. Case 3 is a subrogation action brought by the insurance company for the builders and developers against the Company claiming the insurance company expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the Company's products. Case 4 is a putative class action brought, like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes. In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc., the developer of the Ocean Pointe development, has brought a third party complaint against the Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be liable are actually the fault of the Company. None of the Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought, although each of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive damages. The Company is currently investigating the facts underlying the claims asserted in the Cases, including, among other things, the cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown to exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the general contractor, various subcontractors and other construction professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed. At this time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any property damage allegedly suffered and the extent of such liability, if any, are unknown. Management believes the Cases may not be resolved for an extended period. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in connection with the Cases. Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/-- through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering, manufacture, and sale of building products. It offers wood-to- wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors; screw fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel fasteners; pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss plates; and a range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors, carbide drill bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete, masonry, and steel markets, as well as a range of concrete repair products and engineered materials for the repair, strengthening, and restoration of asphalt and masonry construction. The company markets its products to the residential construction, light industrial and commercial construction, remodeling, and do-it- yourself markets primarily in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific. Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is based in Pleasanton, California. SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Still Defends "Nishimura" Suit in Hawaii --------------------------------------------------------------- Simpson Manufacturing, Inc. continues to defend the lawsuit captioned Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd; Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.; and Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Civil no. 11-1- 1522-07, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on July 20, 2011. The case alleges premature corrosion of the Company's strap tie holdown products in a housing development at Ewa Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii. The case is a putative class action brought by owners of allegedly affected homes. The Complaint alleges that the Company's strap products and mudsill anchors are insufficiently corrosion resistant and/or fail to comply with Honolulu's building code. The Company is currently investigating the claims asserted in the complaint, including, among other things: the existence and extent of the alleged corrosion, if any; the building code provisions alleged to be applicable and, if applicable, whether the products complied; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the general contractor, various subcontractors and other construction professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if any are needed. At this time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any damage allegedly suffered and the extent of such liability, if any, are unknown. The Company denies any liability of any kind and intends to defend itself vigorously in this case. Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/-- through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering, manufacture, and sale of building products. It offers wood-to- wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors; screw fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel fasteners; pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss plates; and a range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors, carbide drill bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete, masonry, and steel markets, as well as a range of concrete repair products and engineered materials for the repair, strengthening, and restoration of asphalt and masonry construction. The company markets its products to the residential construction, light industrial and commercial construction, remodeling, and do-it- yourself markets primarily in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific. Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is based in Pleasanton, California. SISTERS OF MERCY: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Forced Adoptions ----------------------------------------------------------- Claire Moodie, writing for ABC News, reports that a law firm is preparing a class action for about 100 women who say they were forced to give up their babies during the 1960s and 70s. Porters Lawyers, a Canberra-based firm, is representing the women who claim they were forced to give up their babies at a number of institutions and hospitals run by charities and church orders around Australia. They include about a dozen women in Western Australia who claim their babies were taken away from them by the Catholic Church order of Sisters of Mercy. Others, including the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church, are alleged to have been involved. Lawyer Jason Parkinson says the legal action follows the recent Senate inquiry into forced adoptions. "We'd like to get a legal resolution as well as getting them some proper psychological treatment," he said. He says the class action hopes to secure financial compensation for the women. "We'd like to get some kind of symmetry and just finalize the legal situation for them," he said. "And, at the same time get them some proper counseling so that they can say that there was something awful that's happened in the past but finally there's been a resolution." A lobby group set up to represent victims of forced adoption predicts many more women will join the legal action. Origins' Lily Arthur believes compensation is the logical step for many women. "I think it's a tangible form of contrition," she said. "Words to a lot of people are never going to acknowledge the pain and suffering that they've lived with for decades." Ms. Arthur says compensation is necessary. "A lot of them are living in very poor circumstances due to the trauma and mental health problems that they encountered from their experience," she said. In a statement, the Sisters of Mercy says it is committed to working towards a just and compassionate resolution on the matter. The institute's sister Berneice Loch said she recognized it was not always easy to bring about healing of past hurts when considerable time has elapsed. But, she said healing remains the outcome the sisters want. Porters Lawyers say they have already had fruitful discussions with the Sisters of Mercy. STERLING FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over Overdraft Fees in Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------- On March 22, 2012, Sterling Financial Corporation and its subsidiary, Sterling Savings Bank, were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed by two Washington customers of Sterling Savings Bank in King County, Washington, Superior Court, the Company disclosed in its May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The suit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the disclosures related to posting order of debit card and ATM transactions, and alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment, and a violation of state consumer protection laws. No class has been certified and there are significant uncertainties involved in any purported class action litigation. Sterling intends to vigorously defend the case. The Company says its failure to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations and financial condition. Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered probable or reasonably estimable in amount. Spokane, Wash.-based Sterling Financial Corporation -- http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank holding company, organized under the laws of Washington State in 1992. The principal subsidiaries of Sterling are Sterling Savings Bank and Golf Savings Bank. Subsequent to June 30, 2010, Golf Savings Bank was merged with and into Sterling Savings Bank, with the mortgage banking operations of Golf Savings Bank continuing to operate as a division of Sterling Savings Bank. TOSHIBA CORP: Jury Awards Damages of $87 Million in TFT-LCD Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP on July 3 disclosed that a federal court jury on July 3 found that Toshiba Corporation and its subsidiaries conspired with the world's other leading manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Displays ("TFT-LCDs") to raise and fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels and certain products. The jury awarded damages of $87 million. Federal antitrust law requires the trebling of these damages, resulting in a $261 million award against Toshiba. Richard M. Heimann, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, stated, "We are very pleased the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and found that Toshiba violated the law, particularly in light of the government's decision not to criminally prosecute Toshiba for its misconduct. The case demonstrates once again the critical role our civil justice system plays in holding corporations, no matter how powerful or where they are based in the world, accountable for violating U.S. antitrust laws." "There was strong evidence that Toshiba participated in the price- fixing conspiracy through communications with other TFT-LCD manufacturers, and that it received future pricing information from its competitors, shared its own future information, and was aware of its wrongdoing," stated Bruce L. Simon, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. "We are grateful for the jury's service. The jury rejected Toshiba's claim that it had done nothing wrong, and this is one of the few antitrust class actions ever tried to a successful verdict." About the LCDs Antitrust Litigation TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices. Plaintiffs charge that defendants conspired to raise and fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels and certain products containing those panels for over a decade. Previously in the class action litigation, entitled In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal.), the Court certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities that directly purchased TFT-LCDs from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006, one class of panel purchasers, and one class of class of buyers of laptop computers, computer monitors, and televisions that contained TFT-LCDs. The classes reached settlements with ten other defendant manufacturers for a combined value of $430 million. Toshiba was the only defendant to proceed to trial. Lieff Cabraser serves as court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for direct purchasers in the litigation. Contacts: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Richard Heimann, Esq. Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com or Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Eric Fastiff, Esq. Telephone:(415)-956-1000 E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com or Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP Bruce Simon, Esq. Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Toshiba's Response Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba) and its subsidiary, Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (TAEC), on July 3 disclosed that a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) has issued a verdict against Toshiba in the amount of US$87 million due to alleged antitrust practices in the LCD business. Given credits for settlements by other defendants, Toshiba expects that it will not have to pay any damages as a result of this verdict, even after trebling under U.S. antitrust laws. This class action was filed in 2007 by direct purchasers of LCD panels and related products in the United States. Toshiba has consistently maintained that there was no illegal activity on its part in the LCD business in the United States, and Toshiba continues to hold that view. While Toshiba appreciates the jury's time and effort, Toshiba believes that the jury's verdict is in error as to the finding of wrongdoing on Toshiba's part. Toshiba plans to pursue all available legal avenues to correct that finding. At this time, Toshiba does not plan to revise projections for fiscal 2012 business performance due to this matter. WALTER ENERGY: Still Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Moore" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to await a court order on its motion to dismiss a class action complaint over the presence of hazardous substances related to its operations, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The Company and Walter Coke, Inc. were named in a suit filed by Louise Moore on April 26, 2011 (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the companies and/or their predecessors. The action is still in the earliest stages of litigation. On June 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing after March 2, 1995. Based on initial evaluation, management believes that both procedural and substantive defenses are available to the Company and Walter Coke expects to vigorously defend this matter. No specific dollar value has been claimed in the suit's demand for monetary damages. On June 20, 2011, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was heard on October 28, 2011. As of May 8, 2012, a ruling has not been received. Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in the United States. The Company also produces thermal and industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane gas, and other related products. It principally serves electric utility and industrial customers. It was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. WALTER ENERGY: Faces Another Securities Class Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- Another securities class action complaint against Walter Energy, Inc. was filed on March 15, 2012, according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. A previous similar complaint was filed in January 2012. On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are: Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's current CEO; and Neil Winkelmann, former President of Walter's Canadian and European Operations (collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011. The complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claim violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. The Court has not yet appointed lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel. Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe that there is no merit to the claims alleged. Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in the United States. The Company also produces thermal and industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane gas, and other related products. It principally serves electric utility and industrial customers. It was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Unit --------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Energy, Inc. is awaiting results of a plaintiff's motions to proceed with securities claims and to certify securities and oppression claims as class actions, the Company disclosed in its May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In November 2009, the Company's subsidiary, Western Coal Corp., was named as a defendant in a statement of claim issued by a plaintiff who seeks leave of the Ontario Courts to proceed with a securities class action. The claim also named Western Coal's former President and director, John Hogg, and two of its non- executive directors, John Brodie and Robert Chase, as defendants. The plaintiff subsequently delivered an amended claim that added new allegations that seeks to have the amended claim certified as a class action separately from the proposed securities class action allegations. The new allegations focused on certain transactions the plaintiff claims were oppressive and unfair to the interests of shareholders. The amended claim included additional defendants of Western Coal's former Chairman, John Byrne, its remaining non-executive directors John Conlon and Charles Pitcher, Audley European Opportunities Master Fund Limited, Audley Capital Management Limited, and Audley Advisors LLP. The proposed securities claims allege that those persons who acquired or disposed of Western Coal shares between November 14, 2007 and December 10, 2007 should be entitled to recover $200 million for general damages and $20 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleges that Western Coal's consolidated financial statements for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and the accompanying news release issued on November 14, 2007 misrepresented Western Coal's financial condition and that Western Coal failed to make full, plain and true disclosure of all material facts and changes. The plaintiff's oppression claims are advanced in respect of security holders in the period between April 26, 2007 and July 13, 2009. The claims are that the defendants caused Western Coal to enter into transactions that had a dilutive effect on the interests of shareholders. The damages associated with these alleged dilutive effects have not been developed or quantified. The plaintiff's motions to proceed with securities claims and also to certify the securities and oppression claims as class actions were rescheduled to allow the plaintiff additional time to answer the Company's position. The hearing dates were set for June 2012. Western Coal and the other named defendants continue to, and will vigorously defend the allegations. They maintain that there is no merit to the claims and that the damages are without foundation and excessive. Accordingly, the Company has made no provision for the claims in its financial statements. Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in the United States. The Company also produces thermal and industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane gas, and other related products. It principally serves electric utility and industrial customers. It was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. YAHOO! INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action complaint in Northern California, according to the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain officers and directors by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin Cities Pipe Trades Pension Trust. In October 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. In a consolidated amended complaint filed December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff purports to represent a class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between April 19, 2011 and July 29, 2011, and alleges that during that class period, defendants issued statements that were materially false or misleading because they did not disclose information relating to the restructuring of Alipay.com Co., Ltd. The complaint purports to assert claims for relief for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and for violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief, fees and costs. Defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Alibaba Group restructured the ownership of Alipay and deconsolidated Alipay in the first quarter 2011. The Company related that the impact of the deconsolidation of Alipay was not material to its financial statements. On July 29, 2011, the Company entered into a Framework Agreement with Alibaba Group, Softbank Corp., a Japanese corporation, Alipay, APN Ltd., a company organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands ("IPCo"), Zhejiang Alibaba E-Commerce Co., Ltd., a limited liability company organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China ("HoldCo"), Jack Ma Yun, Joseph C. Tsai and certain security holders of Alipay or HoldCo as joinder parties. The Framework Agreement establishes the ongoing financial and other arrangements between Alibaba Group and Alipay. The transactions under the Framework Agreement closed on December 14, 2011. With respect to the legal proceedings and claims described, the Company has determined, based on current knowledge, that the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, including reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not reasonably estimable with respect to certain matters and that the aggregate amount or range of such losses that are estimable would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Amounts accrued as of December 31, 2011 and March 31, 2012 were not material. The ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with certainty. In the event of a determination adverse to Yahoo!, its subsidiaries, directors, or officers in these matters, however, the Company may incur substantial monetary liability, and be required to change its business practices. Either of these events could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company may also incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against these claims. Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, operates as a digital media company that delivers personalized digital content and experiences through various devices worldwide. It offers online properties and services to users; and a range of marketing services to businesses. The Company's communications and communities offerings include Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Groups, Yahoo! Answers, Flickr, and Connected TV. The Company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. YAHOO! INC: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit in Delaware, according to the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On December 1, 2011 and December 7, 2011, purported class action complaints were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court by M & C Partners, III and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, respectively, against the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors at that time. On December 14, 2011, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo! Shareholders Litigation and appointed lead plaintiffs. On December 29, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint purportedly on behalf of all of the Company's stockholders alleging that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the Company's value in connection with the strategic review process. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, rescission, fees and costs. With respect to the legal proceedings and claims described, the Company has determined, based on current knowledge, that the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, including reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts already accrued, is not reasonably estimable with respect to certain matters and that the aggregate amount or range of such losses that are estimable would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Amounts accrued as of December 31, 2011 and March 31, 2012 were not material. The ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with certainty. In the event of a determination adverse to Yahoo!, its subsidiaries, directors, or officers in these matters, however, the Company may incur substantial monetary liability, and be required to change its business practices. Either of these events could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company may also incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against these claims. Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, operates as a digital media company that delivers personalized digital content and experiences through various devices worldwide. It offers online properties and services to users; and a range of marketing services to businesses. The Company's communications and communities offerings include Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Groups, Yahoo! Answers, Flickr, and Connected TV. The Company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. * Large Investors May Opt Out of Class Action Over Libor -------------------------------------------------------- Tom Hals at Reuters reports that the stakes are rising in lawsuits against big banks over allegations they rigged benchmark interest rates, as some large investors may opt out of a massive class action and strike out on their own. Competing lawsuits could drive up the legal costs for the banks, which are accused of colluding to manipulate the global benchmark Libor rate that sets prices on $350 trillion of derivatives and other financial products. Barclays PLC agreed on June 27 to pay $453 million to U.S. and British authorities to resolve the rate manipulation allegations, becoming the first bank to settle the investigation. The scandal led to resignation of Barclay's chairman, chief executive officer and chief operating officer in the past week. Some investors are discussing "opting out" of several pending class-action lawsuits against a group of bank defendants as a way to remain in control of their cases, plaintiffs' lawyers say. Doing so could give them more power in directing the course of the litigation, or negotiating a potential settlement with the bank defendants on their terms. Already, Charles Schwab Corp has filed its own lawsuit against the banks stemming from the Libor allegations rather than join one of the proposed class actions, which allow plaintiffs to pool resources, sue collectively and then divide jury awards or settlements among the group. All of the pending cases have been consolidated before a federal judge in New York. More than a dozen banks, including Citigroup, HSBC and UBS, have been caught up in the probe and have been sued in proposed class- actions by plaintiffs including the city of Baltimore and Frankfurt-based Metzler Investment GmbH, which manages EUR47 billion ($59 billion) in assets. The plaintiffs brought antitrust claims against the banks, saying they were bilked of potentially billions of dollars. The lawsuits have been organized into classes of investors, which would include those harmed by the alleged collusion even if they did not sue. The classes, which would need to be approved by U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald, cover plaintiffs who purchased Libor-linked securities from the banks, those who traded through exchanges securities tied to Libor and those who invested in securities that paid interest based on Libor. The litigation has several procedural hurdles to clear over the next year to 18 months, beginning with motions to dismiss that the defendant banks filed on June 29. The banks argued the cases should be thrown out because they failed to show the defendants acted jointly to restrain competition. "Their only complaint is that the reported rates were allegedly inaccurate, causing (U.S. dollar) Libor to be lower than it otherwise would have been," the banks said in court papers. "Whether that is true or not, it has nothing to do with competition, among defendants or anyone else." Several attorneys not involved in the litigation said the alleged manipulation did not easily lend itself to forming classes, because many plaintiffs would have been affected differently at different times. "You don't really need a class here," said Daniel Brockett of law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in New York, who has represented large institutional investors in litigation. "Most investors are huge institutions that can bring their own claims." Mr. Brockett's firm could stand to gain if it lands an opt-out plaintiff as a client. "I can tell you a lot of major investors are looking at this because the facts that came to light because of Barclays are pretty damning," he said. Thomas Hatch, who represents institutional investors at the law firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, said investors were examining the possibility of opting out as a way to direct their own cases, rather than ride along with a class action. Multiple lawsuits would likely cost the banks more to fight, and their legal headaches could be prolonged if they end up resolving some lawsuits but fighting others. Barclays, Citigroup, HSBC and UBS declined to comment on the litigation. Lawyers for plaintiffs in the proposed class-action cases did not return phone calls or e-mails seeking comment. Opting out of class actions can bring huge rewards for plaintiffs. For instance, the state of Alaska said in 2007 that its $60 million securities fraud settlement with Time Warner Inc was 50 times what it would have recovered as part of a class action against the company. The case involved allegations that the media company misled investors about AOL, with which it merged in 2001. Under a class-action settlement, Time Warner agreed to pay $2.65 billion. Opt-out settlements cost it at least an additional $795 million, according to Oakbridge Insurance Services, which provides executives with liability coverage. Still, going it alone can be risky -- there is no guarantee that a plaintiff will be more successful alone than suing as part of a class. The Libor-rigging case also could drag on for years, and opting out could be prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest investors, such as insurance companies and large pension funds. Attorneys who represent a class work on a contingency basis. Plaintiffs who opt out would need large potential claims to attract their own contingency-fee lawyer. If not, they'd need the money to pay for legal counsel. "You have to have huge damages and huge liability and huge settlements to even think about opting out," said Adam Savett, founder of TXT Capital, a firm that advises plaintiffs on whether to remain in class actions. The Libor litigation involves claims that trillions of dollars of securities were potentially affected. In addition, the cases are brought under antitrust laws, allowing courts to award treble damages. Charles Schwab claims it bought about $660 billion of fixed-rate and floating-rate securities affected by the alleged Libor manipulation. The financial services company does not put an exact figure on damages, but says in court documents that Libor- rigging banks reaped "hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in ill-gotten gains" at Mr. Schwab's expense. One critic of the banks' practices said the litigation could come to rival the billions of dollars that banks have spent to resolve mortgage-related lawsuits. "This is the dark horse candidate to become the next big capital issue for the banks, at least for the banks involved in the Libor manipulation scandal," said Manal Mehta, a partner at Sunesis Capital, a hedge fund following litigation against the large banks. "It has potential to be astronomical." ********* 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 * * *