/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120731.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 31, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 150 Headlines 60 EAST: Continues to Defend Class Suits Pending in N.Y. 250 WEST: Class Action Lawsuits Still Pending in N.Y. Court AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Torque Converters ANDATEE CHINA: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Going Private Proposal APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From Settlement of Suit vs. JNI Pending BUONA VITA: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products BURLINGTON COAT: Fined $1.5-Mil. Over Drawstrings in Kids' Wear CENTENE CORP: Faces Securities Law-Violation Suit in Missouri CORELOGIC INC: Continues to Defend FCRA Suit vs. Teletrack CORELOGIC INC: Ninth Circuit Refuses to Review Class Cert. Order DOLLAR TREE: Still Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Discrimination Suit DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Assistant Managers' Suits in 5 States DOLLAR TREE: Faces Associates' Class Action Suit in Illinois DUKE ENERGY: Gardy & Notis Files Class Action in N.C. E.I. DUPONT: Discovery in Ohio Drinking Water Suit Ongoing E.I. DUPONT: Recorded $490-Mil. Charge for Imprelis(R) Claims FANNIE MAE: Montgomery County Files Class Action Over Taxes FORD MOTOR: Recalls 500,000 Escape SUVs Due to Sticking Pedals GEMB LENDING: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK HEATHCO LLC: Recalls 7,800 Motion Sensing Security Lights JPMORGAN: Faces RICO Class Action in California JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Class Action Over Card Fee Hikes MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Latinos Testify in Class Action v. Arpaio NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York OF LENDING: Homeowners File Class Action Over Refinance Fraud PICCADILLY FINE: Recalls 79 Lbs. of Chicken and Yam Pie Products SUNRISE PROPANE: Class Action Over Plant Explosion Certified T & K LP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action TALBOTS INC: Signs MOU to Settle TLB Merger-Related Class Suits TICKETMASTER: Corey McMillan to Join Class Action Settlement TRIAGE STAFFING: Sued for Hiring Suspect in Hepatitis C Exposure WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Inaccessible POS Devices/Terminals WAL-MART STORES: Disability Rights Advocates File Class Action WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $335-Mil. Expense for Embraco Matters WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits YUM! BRANDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit Pending YUM! BRANDS: Final Hearing on "RGM" Suit Settlement on Aug. 17 YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in "Hines" Class Suit Set for August 20 YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in Wage & Hour Suit vs. Unit Set for Aug. 3 YUM! BRANDS: Opt-In Period in "Smith" Suit Will Close August 23 YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell to Answer "Rosales" Amended Complaint YUM! BRANDS: Unit Wants Class in "Whittington" Suit Decertified * No. of Federal Securities Class Actions Down in 1st Half of 2012 ********* 60 EAST: Continues to Defend Class Suits Pending in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. continues to defend itself against five class actions in New York alleging breach of fiduciary duty, according to the Company's May 18, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. The Company was originally organized as a partnership on September 25, 1958. On October 1, 1958, the Company acquired fee title to One Grand Central Place (the Building), formerly known as the Lincoln Building, at the address 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York and the land thereunder. On November 28, 2001, the Company converted to a limited liability company under New York law and is now known as 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. The conversion did not change any aspect of the assets and operations of the Company other than to protect its participants from liability to third parties. The Company's members are Peter L. Malkin and Anthony E. Malkin, each of whom also acts as an agent for holders of participations in his respective member interest in the Company. The Members in the Company hold senior positions at Malkin Holdings LLC, One Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York, which provides supervisory and other services to the Company and to Lessee. The Company Registrant does not operate the Property. It leases the Property to Lincoln Building Associates L.L.C. (Lessee) pursuant to an operating lease as modified (the Lease), which is currently set to expire on September 30, 2033. Lessee is a New York limited liability company whose members consist of, among others, entities for the benefit of members of Peter L. Malkin's family. Five putative class actions have been brought by Participants in Registrant and several other entities supervised by Malkin Holdings that own fee or leasehold interests in various properties located in New York City, the first of which was filed March 1, 2012. As now pending in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, each Class Action challenges the proposed consolidation of those and other properties supervised by Malkin Holdings into a real estate investment trust (the REIT) and the initial public offering of shares in Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation which intends to qualify for U.S. tax purposes as a REIT. The plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin Holdings, Malkin Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp., Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, Estate of Leona M. Helmsley, Empire State Realty OP, L.P., and the REIT (Defendants) for breach of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, alleging, inter alia, that the terms of the transaction are unfair to the Participants and overly favorable to Malkin Holdings and related parties. The complaints seek money damages and injunctive relief preventing the proposed transaction. On April 3, 2012, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the actions and for appointment of co-lead counsel. Defendants filed a response consenting to consolidation, and taking no position with respect to appointment of co-lead counsel. The motion was scheduled to be heard by the court on June 21, 2012. The Class Actions are in a very preliminary stage, with no responses to the complaints having been filed to date. Defendants have stated they believe the Class Actions are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. 250 WEST: Class Action Lawsuits Still Pending in N.Y. Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Five putative class action lawsuits involving 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. alleging breach of fiduciary duty are pending, according to the Company's May 18, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. 250 West is a New York limited liability company organized as a joint venture on May 25, 1953. On September 30, 1953, 250 West acquired fee title to the building known as 250 West 57th Street, formerly known as the Fisk Building, and the land thereunder located at 250-264 West 57th Street, New York, New York (the Property). On November 30, 2001, 250 West converted to a limited liability company under New York law and is now known as 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. The conversion did not change any aspect of the assets and operations of the Company other than to protect its participants from future liability to a third party. The Company's members are Peter L. Malkin and Anthony E. Malkin, each of whom also acts as an agent for holders of participations in their respective member interests in the Company. The Members in the Company hold senior positions at Malkin Holdings LLC, One Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York, which provides supervisory and other services to the Company and Lessee. The Company does not operate the Property. It leases the Property to Fisk Building Associates L.L.C. (the Lessee) under a long-term net operating lease dated May 1, 1954 (the Lease). In 1985, the Participants in the Company consented to the Company's Agents granting Lessee four options to extend the Lease, in each case for an additional 25 year renewal period, the last expiring in 2103, all on the same terms as the original lease. The Agents intend to grant such options on behalf of Registrant, subject to Lessee's compliance with such consents. Such options have been granted by the Agents and exercised by Lessee as to (a) the first renewal period from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2028, and (b) the second renewal period from October 1, 2028 through September 30, 2053. The Participants in the Company have consented to the granting of options to the Lessee to extend the lease for two additional 25-year renewal terms expiring in 2103. Lessee is a New York limited liability company whose members consist of, among others, Anthony E. Malkin and entities for the benefit of members of Peter L. Malkin's and Anthony E. Malkin's family. Five putative class actions have been brought by Participants in the Company and several other entities supervised by Malkin Holdings that own fee or leasehold interests in various properties located in New York City, the first of which was filed March 1, 2012. As now pending in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, each Class Action challenges the proposed consolidation of those and other properties supervised by Malkin Holdings into a real estate investment trust (the REIT) and the initial public offering of shares in Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation which intends to qualify for U.S. tax purposes as a REIT. The plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin Holdings, Malkin Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp., Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, Estate of Leona M. Helmsley, Empire State Realty OP, L.P., and the REIT (Defendants) for breach of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, alleging, inter alia, that the terms of the transaction are unfair to the Participants and overly favorable to Malkin Holdings and related parties. The complaints seek money damages and injunctive relief preventing the proposed transaction. On April 3, 2012, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the actions and for appointment of co-lead counsel. Defendants filed a response consenting to consolidation, and taking no position with respect to appointment of co-lead counsel. The motion was scheduled to be heard by the court on June 21, 2012. The Class Actions are in a very preliminary stage, with no responses to the complaints having been filed as of May 18, 2012. Defendants have stated they believe the Class Actions are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Torque Converters --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Honda 2005-09 Odysseys have defective torque converters that interfere with acceleration or maintaining speed, a class action claims in Kern County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Witkowski, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No. S-1500-CV 277259 (Calif. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/26/HondaCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Neda Roshanian, Esq. Michael Coats, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508 E-mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com neda@yablonovichlaw.com michael@yablonovichlaw.com ANDATEE CHINA: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Going Private Proposal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andatee China Marine Fuel Services Corporation continues to defend itself against shareholder lawsuits relating to a going private proposal, according to the Company's May 18, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. During the fourth quarter of 2011, a number of class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by or on behalf of current shareholders against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants") in connection with a contemplated "going private" proposal by the Company's Chief Executive Officer and majority shareholder, An Fengbin. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to maximize the value of the Company to its public shareholders in a change of control transactions. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages and other relief, including, without limitation, to enjoin the Individual Defendants from consummating the Proposed Transaction. The foregoing matters are in the early stages of their respective proceedings. The Company anticipates that actions similar to the above-mentioned actions may be filed in the future. Andatee China Marine Fuel Services Corporation -- http://www.andatee.com-- through its subsidiaries, engages in production, storage, distribution, and trading of blended marine fuel oil for cargo and fishing vessels in the Peoples Republic of China. The Company also produces blended marine fuel according to customer specifications. Its blend of marine diesel oil is used as substitute for the traditional diesel oil. APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From Settlement of Suit vs. JNI Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Micro Circuits Corporation acquired JNI Corporation in October 2003. In November 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against JNI and the underwriters of its initial and secondary public offerings of common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, case no. 01 Civ 10740 (SAS). The complaint alleged that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with JNI's public offerings. This lawsuit was among more than 300 class action lawsuits pending in this District Court that have come to be known as the "IPO laddering cases." Pursuant to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), in mid-2009 a settlement was reached in all of the cases. In October 2009, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the case. The settlement did not have a material impact on the Company. The Court subsequently issued a final judgment. Several appeals of the settlement and judgment were filed between October 29 and November 4, 2009. Should the settlement be overturned on appeal and the final judgment vacated, the Company says it could be exposed to additional liabilities and such liability, if any, could not be reasonably estimated at this time. No further updates were reported in the Company's May 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012. Applied Micro Circuits Corporation -- http://www.apm.com-- provides semiconductor solutions for data center, enterprise, telecom, and consumer/small medium business markets. The company designs, develops, markets, and supports integrated circuits used for processing, transporting, and storing information. It offers physical layer products that convert high-speed serial formats to low-speed parallel formats and vice versa; framer and mapper products, which transmit and receive signals to and from the physical layer in a parallel format and are used in high-speed optical network infrastructure equipment; and embedded computing products that are deployed in various critical applications. The company also provides server processor products for computing and networking applications; packet processing products, which are programmable processors that receive and transmit signals to and from the framing layer and perform the processing of packet and cell headers; and cell switching products that switch information in the proper priority and to the proper destinations. Its products are used in wireline and wireless communications equipment, such as wireless access points, wireless base stations, multi-function printers, enterprise and edge switches, blade servers, storage systems, residential and smart energy gateways, core switches, routers, and transport platforms. The company offers its solutions in the United States, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Europe, China, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and other Asian countries. Applied Micro Circuits Corporation was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. BUONA VITA: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received meatballs and various other frozen, ready-to-eat meat and poultry products that have been recalled by Buona Vita, Inc. The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all retail locations that have received the recalled product or may include retail locations that did not actually receive the recalled product. Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that consumers use the product-specific identification information available at http://is.gd/bkEeo6,in addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers' possession to see if they have been recalled. Retailer Name City and State ------------- -------------- Aracely's Restaurant and Market Antioch, California EZ Stop Deli and Grocery Berkeley, California Whispering Tree Market Chula Vista, California S & B Foods Compton, California The Great Impasta/Pasta Stores Danville, California Mikey's Market and Deli Fremont, California La Playa Market Inglewood, California Village Market Irvine, California Food For You Market Los Angeles, California Lisa's Market Ontario, California Delgaudios Market Pacoima, California Saddleback Market Palmdale, California JJ & F Market Palo Alto, California European Mini Mart Rancho Cordova, Calif. B & A Market San Diego, California Bi Rite Market San Diego, California Alamo Square Market San Francisco, California Buchanan Food Mart San Francisco, California Golden Gate Market San Francisco, California Potrero Market San Francisco, California Rutily's Market San Francisco, California Mike and Ken's Grocery South San Francisco, CA LA Ranch Market Stanton, California Genesee Country Store Golden, Colorado Eastside Marketplace Providence, Rhode Island Sunny Flea Market Houston, Texas Holt's Market Longview, Washington Quikway Market Woodland, Washington BURLINGTON COAT: Fined $1.5-Mil. Over Drawstrings in Kids' Wear --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., of Burlington, New Jersey, has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,500,000. The settlement agreement [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12235.pdf]has been provisionally accepted by the Commission (4-0). The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that from 2003 to 2010, Burlington knowingly failed to report immediately to CPSC, as required by federal law, that it had sold many different children's sweatshirts and jackets with drawstrings at the neck. Children's upper outerwear with drawstrings, including sweatshirts, sweaters, and jackets, poses strangulation and entanglement hazards [http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2012/05/drawstrings-not-allowed/]to children that can result in serious injury or death. The settlement also resolves CPSC staff allegations that from 2008 to 2012, contrary to federal law, Burlington knowingly sold or had in its store inventories many of these garments after they had been recalled. The penalty is the highest that CPSC has ever assessed for violations involving children's upper outerwear with drawstrings. Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation, standard or ban enforced by CPSC. Federal law also bars selling products that have been recalled by a manufacturer. CPSC began warning about drawstring dangers in the early 1990s. The agency issued guidelines in 1996 about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. Those guidelines were incorporated into an industry voluntary standard in 1997. In 2006, CPSC's Office of Compliance announced [http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/drawstring.pdf]that children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regarded as defective and presenting a substantial risk of injury to young children. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation [http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/drawstrings.html]that designated as substantial product hazards children's upper outerwear in sizes 2T to 12 (or extra-small to large) with neck or hood drawstrings, and children's upper outerwear in sizes 2T to 16 (or extra-small to extra-large) with certain waist or bottom drawstrings. The sweatshirts and jackets that are the subject of the penalty were sold by Burlington Coat Factory stores throughout the country. Beginning in 2007, CPSC and the garments' manufacturers and distributors, as well as Burlington in 2010, announced the recalls listed in the chart below of children's garments with drawstrings covered by the penalty. In agreeing to the settlement, Burlington denies CPSC staff allegations that it knowingly violated the law. Manufacturer/Importer/ Distributor/Retailer # of (link to recall) Product Units ---------------------- ------- ----- 5 Star Apparel Mecca children's hooded 11,500 jackets with drawstrings http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10193.html Allura Imports Girls' hooded sweatshirts 3,700 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10050.html Baycreek Hooded sweatshirts 1,900 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10144.html Bobens Trading Girls' hooded sweatshirts 3,900 with drawstrings http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10140.html Brand Evolution Locks All Over boys' hoody, 2,800 All Over Skaters boys' hoody and Rock Mask boys' hoody http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10158.html Bubblegum USA Girls' hooded jackets with 900 drawstrings http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10179.html Burlington Coat Factory 12 brands of hooded jackets 10,000 and sweatshirts http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10347.html Byer California Girls' cargo pocket jackets 600 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10161.html Fashion Options Boys' velour warm-up sets 5,400 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10047.html Franshaw Children's hooded jackets 2,400 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10143.html Haselson International Children's hooded 23,000 Trading sweatshirts with drawstrings http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10170.html Hind Fashions Boys' hooded jackets 200 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10244.html Jason Evans Boys' fleece & flannel zip 18,300 hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10080.html Jason Evans Children's hooded jackets 1,300 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09213.html KOMAN Sportswear Boys' hooded sweatshirts 13,300 and warm-up sets http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09289.html Liberty Apparel Jewel brand girls' hooded 12,000 sweatshirts http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08146.html Liberty Apparel Jewel girls' hooded 2,300 sweatshirts with drawstrings http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10178.html Lollytogs Rim Rocka boys' hooded 23,000 jackets and Pelle Pelle girls' hooded jackets http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10250.html North-Sportif hooded jackets and 360 reversible vests 360 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10185.html Regaliti Girls' hooded jackets with 3,600 drawstrings http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10160.html S. Rothschild & Co. Girls' coats 13,500 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10246.html Ten West Apparel Boys' hooded jackets 75 http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10152.html Trendset Originals Girls' hooded jackets Marci & Me brand 2,400 Shampoo brand unknown http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10201.html Weeplay Kids Hooded sweatshirts with 11,800 drawstrings http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10142.html CENTENE CORP: Faces Securities Law-Violation Suit in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in Missouri, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In June 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit alleges, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 7, 2012, through June 8, 2012, that the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements principally concerning the Company's fiscal 2012 earnings guidance. According to the complaint, these allegedly materially false statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities, which subsequently dropped following the announcement of its revised fiscal 2012 earnings guidance on June 11, 2012. The Company believes the case is without merit and plans to vigorously defend its position. CORELOGIC INC: Continues to Defend FCRA Suit vs. Teletrack ---------------------------------------------------------- CoreLogic, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Teletrack, Inc. ("Teletrack"), one of the Company's subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., and seeks to recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees, litigation expenses and cost of lawsuit. On September 20, 2011, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. That motion was denied on March 7, 2012. The Company has denied the allegations and is defending against this claim vigorously; however, the Company may not be successful. At this time, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. CORELOGIC INC: Ninth Circuit Refuses to Review Class Cert. Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to review the class certification order in the lawsuit involving a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc., according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against Washington Mutual Bank ("WaMu") and First American eAppraiseIT ("eAppraiseIT") alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint was largely based on the complaint filed by the New York Attorney General and alleged conspiracies between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu and on March 9, 2009, and August 30, 2009, the Court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim. On July 2, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC ("CVS"), as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to seek appeal of that decision. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order. CVS intends to defend against this claim vigorously; however, the Company may not be successful. At this time the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. DOLLAR TREE: Still Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on an appeal from the dismissal of a gender discrimination lawsuit in Virginia, according to the Company's May 17, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012. In 2009, 34 plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint in a federal court in Virginia, alleging gender pay and promotion discrimination under Title VII. In 2010, the case was dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed by the parties and oral arguments were conducted in January 2012. The parties await a decision of the appellate court which is expected by late spring or summer of 2012. The Company will vigorously defend itself in the matter. The Company does not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business or financial condition. The Company cannot give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material effect on its results of operations for the period in which they are resolved. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com-- operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada. Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of $1.00. The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills. The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage-and- hour lawsuit in California, according to the Company's May 17, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012. In April 2011, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, instituted a class action in a California state court primarily alleging a failure by the Company to provide meal breaks, to compensate for all hours worked, and to pay overtime compensation. The Company removed the case to federal court which denied Plaintiffs' motion for remand of the case to state court. The case presently awaits a scheduling order. There is no trial date. No updates were reported in the Company's SEC filing. The Company will vigorously defend itself in the matter. The Company does not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business or financial condition. The Company cannot give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material effect on its results of operations for the period in which they are resolved. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com-- operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada. Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of $1.00. The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills. The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Assistant Managers' Suits in 5 States ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuits filed by assistant store managers in Georgia, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and Illinois, according to the Company's May 17, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012. In the summer and fall of 2011, collective action lawsuits were filed against the Company in six federal courts by different assistant store managers, each alleging he or she was forced to work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suits were filed in Georgia, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and Illinois. Plaintiffs also assert various state law claims for which they seek class treatment. The Georgia suit sought statewide class certification for those assistant store managers similarly situated during the relevant time periods. The state- based claims have been dismissed and only the federal claims remain and, on the Company's motion, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Florida, Colorado, Michigan and Illinois cases seek nationwide certifications for those assistant store managers similarly situated during the relevant time periods. The Illinois case also includes a purported class of all other hourly store associates, making the same allegations on their behalf. The Company has commenced its investigation and has filed motions to dismiss and motions to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia in these four cases. No rulings on these motions have been made to date. The Plaintiffs filed a motion with the federal court Multi- District Litigation Panel to consolidate all these and other related cases, which motion was denied. To date, the only cases in which class certification motions have been filed are the Illinois and Colorado actions. None of the cases have been assigned a trial date. The Company will vigorously defend itself in the matter. The Company does not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business or financial condition. The Company cannot give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material effect on its results of operations for the period in which they are resolved. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com-- operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada. Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of $1.00. The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills. The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Faces Associates' Class Action Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree, Inc., has been sued by three of its associates in Joliet, Illinois, according to the Company's May 17, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012. Around May 1, 2012, three associates who were formerly employed at the Company's distribution center in Joliet, Illinois, filed a Rule 23 class action lawsuit in federal court in Illinois alleging that at the time of their termination of employment, they failed to receive compensation for their accrued paid time off. They brought this case on behalf of themselves and those former associates similarly situated. The Company has just begun its investigation of the allegations contained in the Complaint. The Company will vigorously defend itself in the matter. The Company does not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business or financial condition. The Company cannot give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material effect on its results of operations for the period in which they are resolved. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com-- operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada. Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of $1.00. The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills. The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia. DUKE ENERGY: Gardy & Notis Files Class Action in N.C. ----------------------------------------------------- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of all persons who exchanged shares of Progress Energy, Inc. common stock for shares of Duke Energy Corporation common stock in connection with the merger between Progress and Duke. Duke filed documents with the SEC that described the terms of the merger on July 7, 2012 and stated that Progress CEO William Johnson would be the CEO of the combined Company and Duke CEO James Rogers would be the Chairman of the Board. The lawsuit alleges that Duke failed to disclose, and misrepresented that Rogers, not Johnson, would serve as the CEO of the combined Company after the merger. On July 3, 2012, Duke announced that Johnson had resigned by agreement and Rogers had been president and CEO of the combined Company. Defendants knew the Registration Statement contained misleading statements and omitted material facts about Mr. Johnson's role as CEO of the combined Company. The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and a class of all other investors who acquired shares of Duke common stock as part of the merger exchange. The defendants in the case are Duke and members of its board of directors. The legal claims are based on violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Gardy & Notis, which prosecutes shareholder class actions nationwide. If you were a Progress shareholder whose shares were exchanged for new Duke stock as part of the merger, you may, no later than September 24, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lawsuit, to learn how you can join the class, or to obtain a copy of the complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. at Gardy & Notis, LLP at 201-567-7377 or jsarnelli@gardylaw.com CONTACT: Gardy & Notis, LLP Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. Telephone: 201-567-7377 E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com E.I. DUPONT: Discovery in Ohio Drinking Water Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts ("PFOA") in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. The Company is also funding a series of health studies by an independent science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel") in the communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The Company expects the C8 Science Panel to complete these health studies through October 2012 at a total estimated cost of $33 million. In December 2011, the C8 Science Panel concluded that there is a probable link, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, which includes preeclampsia. In April 2012, the C8 Science Panel announced its probable link determinations regarding cancer and adult onset diabetes. The C8 Science Panel found a probable link between exposure to PFOA and two categories of cancer (kidney and testicular). A panel of medical experts will determine an appropriate medical monitoring protocol, if any, as a result of these findings. If a medical monitoring protocol for any of these diseases is defined, DuPont is required to fund a medical monitoring program to pay for such medical testing. Plaintiffs may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determines a probable link exists once the C8 Science Panel completes its work. In January 2012, the Company put $1 million in an escrow account as required by the settlement agreement. The Company will reassess its liability based on the medical monitoring panel's determination since costs are not reasonably estimable until a medical monitoring protocol, if any, is identified. The Company will continue to reassess its liability based on the C8 Science Panel's future probable link findings, if any, and associated medical monitoring protocols, if any. Under the settlement agreement, the Company's total obligation to pay for medical monitoring cannot exceed $235 million. In addition, the Company must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users. An Ohio action brought by the LHWA is currently in discovery. In addition to general claims of PFOA contamination of drinking water, the action claims "imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or the environment" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DuPont denies these claims and is defending itself vigorously. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to the matters for which it has established accruals, a range of such losses, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. E.I. DUPONT: Recorded $490-Mil. Charge for Imprelis(R) Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company disclosed in its July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it had recorded charges of $490 million related to claims over Imprelis(R). The Company has received claims and been served with multiple lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis(R) herbicide caused damage to certain trees. The lawsuits seeking class action status have been consolidated in federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In addition, about 60 individual actions have been filed in state court in various jurisdictions. DuPont is seeking to remove these cases to federal court. In August 2011, the Company suspended sales of Imprelis(R) and in September began a process to fairly resolve claims associated with the use of Imprelis(R). The deadline for property owners to file claims was February 1, 2012, although DuPont continues to receive claims at a declining rate which it expects to consider as part of the claims resolution process. However, the Company believes that the number of unasserted claims is limited due to the fact that sales were suspended in August 2011 and the product was last applied during the 2011 spring application season. The Company has established review processes to verify and evaluate damage claims. There are several variables that impact the evaluation process including the number of trees on a property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to naturally recover over time. Upon receiving claims, DuPont verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical review of the property. At June 30, 2012, DuPont had recorded charges of $490 million related to the Imprelis(R) matter, which included charges of $265 million and $315 million recorded during the second quarter and year-to-date 2012, respectively. It is reasonably possible that additional charges could result related to this matter. While there is a high degree of uncertainty, total charges could range as high as $575 million. DuPont has submitted and will continue to submit requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs associated with this matter in excess of $100 million. FANNIE MAE: Montgomery County Files Class Action Over Taxes ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that county officials in southwest Ohio have filed a class action lawsuit against two mortgage giants they say owe millions in unpaid taxes. Montgomery County filed a federal lawsuit on July 25 that says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wrongfully claimed various exemptions to avoid paying transfer taxes to state counties. Transfer taxes are owed to a county when a deed is recorded. The lawsuit claims the companies didn't pay transfer taxes involving banks that foreclosed on homes and new homeowners. Officials say both companies filed for exemptions as government entities and other inapplicable exemptions for an unspecified time. The lawsuit involves most state counties. Summit County has filed an individual case. A Fannie Mae representative says the company cannot comment on pending litigation. A Freddie Mac representative could not be immediately reached. FORD MOTOR: Recalls 500,000 Escape SUVs Due to Sticking Pedals -------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Ferran of ABC News reports that The Ford Motor Company is recalling nearly half a million Escape model compact sport utility vehicles amid concerns over a potentially deadly problem with sticking accelerator pedals. The new recall, which affects 2001 to 2004 models that have 3- liter, V-6 engines with cruise control or approximately 484,600 vehicles, was ordered after safety inspectors discovered the accelerator's speed control cables could become stuck on an engine cover when the pedal is almost fully depressed, according to a recall notice by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. The recall comes after ABC News' Phoenix affiliate, KNXV, launched an investigation into a Ford Escape crash that claimed the life of 17-year-old Saige Bloom. The Arizona teen lost control of her vehicle and crashed on a local road in January. Moments before that crash, Ms. Bloom's mother, who was driving in another car behind her daughter, made frantic calls to 911 saying, "She cannot stop. We're coming to a red light and I don't know what to do for her," KNXV reported. The younger Bloom plowed into another car and rolled three times. She later died of her injuries. According to KNXV, an inspector hired by the Bloom family later discovered the vehicle's speed control cable had broken and become lodged under the engine cover, meaning the throttle was stuck at near full speed. Ford spokesperson Marcey Zwiebel told ABC News that the issue does not spontaneously cause the vehicle to accelerate, but the accelerator can only get stuck after the driver has pressed the pedal all the way, or most of the way down. Marcey Zwiebel also said that the Company has only recently been able to investigate the vehicle involved in Ms. Bloom's death, but said Ford's internal investigation was not solely based on that single incident. "We had a volume of data to review and analyze in order to ensure our investigation was thoroughly and properly implemented," Ms. Zweibel said. In a customer information sheet, Ford said that most dealerships will not have the parts to permanently fix the problem just yet but said customers should go to their local dealership for an "interim repair, which will disable the speed control system on your vehicle to eliminate the possibility of a stuck throttle..." "This temporary repair will allow you to continue driving your vehicle until parts for the permanent repair are available," the information sheet says. GEMB LENDING: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge granted preliminary approval to a settlement, and certified the underlying class, involving claims against GEMB Lending, E*Trade Financial, Thor Credit Corp., and CCB Credit Services. A copy of the Preliminary Approval Order in Baker v. GEMB Lending Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-05261 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/26/GEMB.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq. Nancy Barron, Esq. Amy Tay, Esq. KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP 445 Bush St., 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 632-1900 - and - Alexander B. Trueblood, Esq. TRUEBLOOD LAW 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 443-4139 HEATHCO LLC: Recalls 7,800 Motion Sensing Security Lights --------------------------------------------------------- * Electrical Shock Hazard Cited * Sold Exclusively at Home Depot The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with HeathCo LLC, of Bowling Green, Kentucky, announced a voluntary recall of about 7,800 Motion Sensing Security Lights. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Internal wiring can be damaged during installation, bulb replacement or adjustment, posing an electric shock hazard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves Heath(R)/Zenith 270 degree Motion Security Lights with model number SL-5414-WH. It replaces a standard outdoor wall mounted light fixture and is designed to turn on when motion is detected at night. The product has two cone-shaped lightbulb receptacles attached to a round mounting plate. A small, rectangular motion sensor is attached to the mounting plate between the lightbulb receptacles. The unit is made of aluminum and plastic. It comes in white only. The brand name and model number are on a label located on the back of the motion sensor. A picture of the recalled products is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12236.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Home Depot Stores from September 2011 through April 2012 for about $30. Consumers should immediately stop using the light, turn off power to the unit at the circuit breaker or fuse panel and contact HeathCo for a free replacement light fixture. For additional information, contact HeathCo toll-free at (855) 833-8657 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, e-mail hzproductnotice@heathcollc.com, or visit the Company's Web site at http://www.heath-zenith.com/hzproductnotice/ JPMORGAN: Faces RICO Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that RICO class actions in Federal Court claim Citibank and JPMorgan Chase "conceal the unlawful assessment of improperly marked-up or unnecessary third-party fees for default-related services, cheating borrowers who can least afford it." A copy of the Complaint in Ellis, et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 12-cv-03397 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/26/JPMorganCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Alberstone, Esq. Roland Tellis, Esq. Mark Pifko, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com mpifko@baronbudd.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Class Action Over Card Fee Hikes -------------------------------------------------------- ABCNews.com reports that under a court settlement filed last week in San Francisco, JPMorgan Chase will pay $100 million to credit card holders who saw their minimum monthly payments hiked from 2 percent to 5 percent between 2008 and 2009. A class-action lawsuit, filed three years ago, argued that the increase was improper, and that it violated commitments made by the bank to induce cardholders to switch their balances to Chase from other lenders. Those commitments, says Howard Dvorkin, CPA, a founder of ConsolidatedCredit.org, included interest rates that were supposed to remain "fixed" until balances were paid in full. "They said come to us and we'll fix your interest rate for the life of the loan, until it's paid off," says Mr. Dvorkin. In 2008 and 2009, however, the bank raised rates, triggering an increase in late payment penalties from hard-squeezed borrowers. Late payment also could trigger a penalty interest rate of 29.29 percent. "Your promotional rate that got you to the bank, they didn't honor," says Mr. Dvorkin. "A client would go delinquent, and triggering penalty and late fees, and your interest rate could go to 30 percent. Do I think this was part of an evil master plan? No. Do I think it was aggressive? Yes. And now they're paying the penalty for it." Chase's view, according to the proposed settlement, which still must be approved by a judge, was that raising payment minimums was "a reasonable and sensible response to unprecedented economic turmoil and impending regulatory changes" -- meaning the credit card reform act of 2009. The proposed settlement includes a complex allocation plan for divvying up the $100 million between members of the class. Class members get a flat payment of $25 plus a pro-rata share of the settlement fund (after legal fees and costs have been deducted). The plan gives $72 as a representative amount. "At the end of the day," says Mr. Dvorkin, "it's the lawyers who make the money." A spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase, contacted by ABCNews.com, declined to comment on the settlement. Darryl Dahlheimer, program director of LSS Financial Services, a provider of credit counseling advice, views the settlement as a warning to borrowers: most consumers, he says, have no concept how long it will take them to pay off a credit card balance if all they're paying is the monthly minimum. On LSS's Web site is a calculation tool called the Scrooge-O-Meter they can use to see the awful truth. "Let's say you've got a $10,000 balance on your card," says Mr. Dahlheimer. "And say your interest rate is 18 percent. That's a realistic, non-teaser rate. If you pay the minimum of 2 percent or $200 a month, it'll take you 94 months" -- upwards of 8 years to pay it off. "If someone feels trapped by rising payments," he advises, "there's a whole industry called consumer credit counseling that has a product called a debt management plan, creditor-approved, for helping them pay back their debt. If your foot's in a bear trap, there's a bear trap remover." But there are many for-profit "counseling" firms that may extract high fees for their help or take your money and do little. Some pay off your debts but loan you the money, sometimes at high interest rates. Your local Consumer Credit Counseling Service is a non-profit group that assists consumers with debt problems. MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Latinos Testify in Class Action v. Arpaio -------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that personal stories about Sheriff Joe Arpaio's officers' treatment of Latino citizens took center stage on July 25 in the federal class action trial. Daniel Magos, a 67-year-old maintenance worker, tearfully described feeling "humiliated, worthless, defenseless" after he was pulled over and searched by a sheriff's deputy while on his way to a job site. When the deputy pulled over Mr. Magos and his wife, who was riding in the front passenger seat, he "was yelling at us, and he never addressed us in a civil manner," Mr. Magos said. The deputy told Mr. Magos, a Chihuahua-born U.S. citizen, that he had pulled him over because there was no license plate on his trailer, but Mr. Magos said the deputy could not have seen the back of the trailer when he made a U-turn to pull him over. "The deputy asked me if I was carrying any drugs, any weapons, or any bazookas in my truck," Mr. Magos said. "I told him I was not carrying any bazookas or drugs, but I told him I was carrying a handgun." The deputy told Mr. Magos to get out of the truck so that he could search him. "I asked him why I was being searched, and he said I was being searched for weapons and drugs," Mr. Magos said. "I told the deputy if he searched me it was against my consent. "He searched my underarms, my sides, my groin area," Mr. Magos said, choking back tears. After the search, the deputy told Mr. Magos he was free to go, and apologized for "yelling and screaming and scaring us on the stop." Mr. Magos, who is not a named plaintiff in the class action, was not cited for a traffic violation. "After his apology, he told me that stop had nothing to do with racial profiling," Mr. Magos said. "I told him that was exactly what that was." The court also heard testimony from Velia Meraz and Manuel Nieto Jr., both U.S. citizens and plaintiffs, who claim sheriff's deputies followed them to their family business on March 28, 2008 after a deputy threatened to charge them with disorderly conduct when they refused to leave a gas station. "We went to the gas station right down the street from the shop to buy some Gatorade and some cigarettes," Mr. Nieto said. At the station, he said that he and his sister, Ms. Meraz, spotted a sheriff's deputy with two detainees at the gas pumps. Mr. Nieto, 37, who was driving, said the deputy approached his sister on the front passenger side of her black Chevy Suburban and said, "You need to leave now." Mr. Nieto said he asked the deputy, "What did we do wrong?" and the deputy responded, "You need to leave now or I'm going to arrest you for disorderly conduct." Mr. Nieto said he and his sister left the gas station immediately and returned to their auto shop, then heard sirens. Ms. Meraz, 39, said that on their way out of the gas station, she yelled to the detainees in Spanish, "Don't sign anything you don't understand, and provide your names only." When they reached the auto shop, Mr. Nieto testified, he saw "a motorcycle officer in back of us. It was chaos." Mr. Nieto, who weeks before the incident had been released from prison on a burglary charge, said he was scared, so he called 911 from inside of the SUV. When the motorcycle deputy approached his door and told him to get out of the vehicle, Mr. Nieto said he was on the phone with 911, and the deputy told him, "I don't care who you are on the phone with, get out of the vehicle." The motorcycle deputy pulled Mr. Nieto out of the car, and "within seconds I had two or three other officers or posse members on top of me." "I was being harassed, I feared for my life," Mr. Nieto said. While Mr. Nieto was on the ground, Ms. Meraz had slowly got out of the SUV and was standing at the front of the shop with her father came outside and asked deputies, "What's going on? What's wrong? Why are you guys doing that to him?" When their father said, "Those are my children, they're U.S. citizens," the deputies backed off, Ms. Meraz said. Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz were not cited after they provided deputies with identification. Michael Kikes, the motorcycle deputy who pulled over Nieto and Ms. Meraz, told a different story on the stand. Mr. Kikes said he went to the gas station after receiving an "anxious type of radio transmission." Mr. Kikes said that when he tried to pull over the SUV, Mr. Nieto did not pull over to the right, but turned left into his family business despite Mr. Kikes' requests over the motorcycle's P.A. system to pull over. Mr. Kikes said he kept asking Mr. Nieto to "step out of the vehicle," and once he got him out, he took him to the back of the vehicle, where he handcuffed him while he checked his identification. "He never obeyed or wanted to respond to us in any shape of form," Mr. Kikes said. He said he never touched Mr. Nieto except to help him out of the vehicle and to sit him on the rear bumper. Mr. Kikes denied that he racially profiled Mr. Nieto's, claiming that the windows of the Suburban were tinted and that he was focusing on Mr. Nieto's eyes and his motions. The trial was set to continue on July 26. Testimony is expected to conclude on Thursday, Aug. 2. NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal securities class action against New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action (12 Civ. 5724), filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased New Oriental American Depositary Shares ("ADS") between July 21, 2009 and July 17, 2012, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased New Oriental securities during the Class Period, you have until September 21, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. New Oriental provides private educational services, primarily in China. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically the Company failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly consolidated into its financial statements the earnings of a variable interest entity and its wholly-owned subsidiaries; (2) a significant number of the Company's schools and learning centers were not company- owned, but were rather operated by numerous franchisees; (3) the Company improperly consolidated franchisees' financial results to its financial statements; (4) the schools that conduct EDU's operations are state property, and not owned by EDU; (5) upfront franchise and other fees had inflated the Company's cash balances; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 17, 2012, the Company disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission "had issued a formal order of investigation" as to whether the Company appropriately consolidated the earnings of Beijing New Oriental Education & Technology (Group) Co., Ltd., a variable interest entity of the Company, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. On this news, EDU's ADS plummeted $7.64 per ADS or more than 34%, to close at $14.62 per ADS on July 17, 2012. On July 18, 2012, independent stock research firm Muddy Waters, LLC issued an analyst report with a strong sell rating, predicting that the Company "will have a significant restatement, and that its auditor will resign." On this news, EDU's ADS declined an additional $5.12 per ADS or more than 35%, to close at $9.50 per ADS on July 18, 2012. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. It has offices in New York and Chicago. OF LENDING: Homeowners File Class Action Over Refinance Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Finney, writing for ABC 7, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against a now defunct Alameda County company accused of bilking distressed homeowners out of millions of dollars. O.F. Lending offered its clients a chance to get their homes out from under water. The company said it had come up with a way to refinance at current market value. Many of those who bought into the program now say they were victims of fraud. "I am really hurt. It has hurt my trust in people," said Robin Samuels of Felton. "We were very angry, very upset, very angry, a little ashamed," said Benjamin Ostroff of Novato. Messrs. Ostroff and Samuels are two homeowners who each paid thousands of dollars to O.F. Lending for a chance to get what the company called "a short pay refinance." A lawsuit filed on July 25 in Alameda County Superior Court accused O.F. Lending of bilking homeowners out of millions of dollars. "The fraud is telling my clients, 'I can do the short pay refinance and save you hundreds of thousands of dollars,' to demand upfront payments, take that money, allegedly put it in a trust account, but when it's time to pay the clients when OF Lending is unsuccessful, tell them that there's no money in the trust account," said David Tubman, a plaintiff attorney. Bill Hogarty is the man identified as the CEO of O.F. Lending. That company has been shut down by the Department of Real Estate. Mr. Hogarty filed for bankruptcy and listed his clients with O.F. Lending as creditors. Federal bankruptcy trustees have challenged that bankruptcy filing. The complaint accuses Mr. Hogarty of illegally accepting loan modification fees, not placing funds in a trust account, and instead using the funds for personal benefit. He is accused of doing this with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. "These people put money in good faith, hoping, wishing to save their homes. Three of them have lost their homes to date. We want some compensation for that," said Mr. Tubman. O.F. Lending's attorney was not available for comment, but in court filings stated that his client denied taking advance fees for short pay refinances between 2009 and 2011. He also denies Mr. Hogarty had any knowledge the money wasn't put into a trust account. For O.F. Lending's former clients, it has been an emotional rollercoaster. "It's awful. I just wanted it done," said Molly Ostroff of Novato. The Samuels sued O.F. Lending in small claims court and won. The Ostroffs are one of 21 families named in the class action lawsuit. PICCADILLY FINE: Recalls 79 Lbs. of Chicken and Yam Pie Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Piccadilly Fine Foods, a Santa Clara, California, establishment, is recalling approximately 79 pounds of chicken and yam pie products that may include a curry paste containing shrimp, a known allergen not declared on the product label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products subject to recall are: * Shipping cases containing 24 "Top Nosh Farmer's Market Chicken and Yam with Coconut Curry Pies." * Individual 5.5 ounce "Top Nosh Farmer's Market Chicken and Yam with Coconut Curry Pies." Each package label bears the establishment number "P-9216" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Additionally each package bears the lot code 184-12. The lot code is stamped on the label side of the shipping cases and ink-jetted on the plastic film overwrap of each individual pie. The products were produced on June 29, 2012, and sold to a San Jose, California-area distributor for further distribution. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on FSIS' Web site at: www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp. The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine label review and occurred as a result of a temporary change in the ingredient formulation for the product. FSIS and the company have not received reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks (including at restaurants) to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and reporters with questions about the recall should contact the company's Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Coordinator, David Hansen, at (408) 246-1200. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888- MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. SUNRISE PROPANE: Class Action Over Plant Explosion Certified ------------------------------------------------------------ Stevensons LLP on July 26 disclosed that the action arising out of the explosion at the Sunrise Propane distribution plant located on Murray Road in Toronto, Ontario on August 10, 2008 was certified as a class action. The Court has determined that the matter can proceed through the courts as a class action which is a critical step in obtaining justice for the many innocent victims of this tragedy", said Harvin Pitch counsel to Stevensons LLP. Class Counsel in this matter is Theodore P. Charney -- tedc@falconercharney.com -- of Falconer, Charney LLP, Harvey Strosberg and Sharon Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Mr. Pitch. "We are determined to obtain justice for those whose lives were altered by this terrible event," said Theodore P. Charney. "We believe the ruling brings us closer to resolving this matter." "In order to ensure that class members are kept up to date on developments in the class action as well as determining the value of a class member's claim, it is important to register with Class Counsel at www.sunrisepropaneclassaction.com," said Richard Bogoroch of Bogoroch and Associates. The certification order allows the matter to proceed against the defendants, including Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc., The Technical Standards and Safety Authority, and a number of suppliers to Sunrise Propane. The explosion forced the evacuation of approximately 12,500 residents and caused over C$25 million dollars in property damage. T & K LP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ On July 2, 2012, the California labor law firm Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against T & K, L.P., a company who owns and operates several Taco Bell stores in the state of California, alleging T&K failed to compensate their employees for all hours worked, including work that was required to be performed off the clock. Martinez, et al. vs. T & K L.P., Case No. M118459 is currently pending in the Monterey County Superior Court for the State of California. Specifically, the wage and hour class action Complaint alleges that T&K required their employees to handle monetary transactions throughout the business day and that when the restaurant's cash register suffered a loss on any given day, the Plaintiff and other California Class Members were allegedly responsible for making up the cash shortages via a deduction in their wages regardless of fault. Additionally, the Complaint further states that T&K threatened the Plaintiff and other California Class Members with disciplinary action if they were unable to make up the cash shortages. Moreover, the Complaint also asserts that T&K "fails and continues to fail to correctly record all hours worked by the Plaintiff and other California Class Members." As a result, the Complaint claims that these employees have been underpaid throughout their employment with T&K. Norman B. Blumenthal, managing partner of Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik stated, "Responsible employers know that it's illegal to make your employees pay for cash shortages. Unfortunately, not all employers are responsible and end up taking unfair advantage of their employees." The employment law firm Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik represents many California workers in lawsuits involving California Labor Code violations against their current or former employers. TALBOTS INC: Signs MOU to Settle TLB Merger-Related Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Talbots, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As previously disclosed, certain class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the proposed merger (the "Merger") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 30, 2012, among The Talbots, Inc. (the "Company"), TLB Holdings LLC ("Parent") and TLB Merger Sub Inc. (the "Purchaser"). On July 23, 2012, the parties to In re The Talbots, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 7513-CS, pending before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") and the parties to Brodt v. The Talbots, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-00853-UNA, pending before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (collectively, the "Actions") entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") providing for a settlement, subject to Court approval, of the Actions. The settlement provided for in the MOU, if approved by the Court, will resolve all of the allegations and claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the Actions against the Company, each member of the Company's board of directors, Sycamore Partners, L.P., Parent and Purchaser (the "Defendants"), and will further provide for the release and settlement by the plaintiffs and the class of the Company's stockholders of all claims, against the Defendants and/or any of their respective families, parent entities, controlling persons, associates, predecessors, successors, affiliates or subsidiaries, and each and all of their respective past or present officers, directors, shareholders, principals, representatives, employees, attorneys, financial or investment advisors, consultants, accountants, investment bankers, commercial bankers, entities providing fairness opinions, underwriters, brokers, dealers, advisors or agents, heirs, executors, trustees, general or limited partners or partnerships, limited liability companies, members, managers, joint ventures, personal or legal representatives, estates, administrators, predecessors, successors and assigns, that are related, directly or indirectly, to the proposed Merger or the allegations that were asserted or could have been asserted in the Actions. In connection with the settlement, the Defendants deny that they have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any alleged unlawful or wrongful act whatsoever, and expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied with any fiduciary, disclosure and all other legal duties. In connection with the MOU, the Company has agreed to provide certain supplemental disclosures which are set forth in the Schedule 14D-9/A filed by the Company with the SEC on July 24, 2012. TICKETMASTER: Corey McMillan to Join Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Pollstar reports that an Arkansas man who took Ticketmaster to court last year over ticket fees will join the settlement of a similar class-action suit in Los Angeles following the dismissal of his case. U.S. District Judge James Moody dismissed Corey McMillan's suit July 24 and ruled it can't be refiled. Mr. McMillan sued TM and Live Nation after he bought four tickets to see Jason Aldean at Verizon Arena in North Little Rock and was irked over ticket charges. His complaint alleged the company's fees violated the state's trade practices law. Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, a number of objectors have come forward to urge Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman to reject the settlement agreement for a class-action suit filed by a group of consumers in 2003 that raised hell over TM's processing fees and UPS charges. It seemed both sides had finally reached a deal last November after years of "extensive, contentious, arm's-length negotiations." Under the terms of the proposed agreement, people who purchased tickets between Oct. 21, 1999, and Oct. 19, 2011, would receive credits to their TM accounts of $1.50 per purchase for up to 17 transactions. Additionally, people who opted in to a UPS subclass in the suit would be entitled to $5 credits per transaction to be used for future delivery fees. But it now appears that some class members feel they're getting the short end of the stick in the settlement, which they say favors attorneys over the class. Attorneys would receive about $15 million in fees and $1.5 million in costs under the agreement, according to court documents obtained by the National Law Journal. "You should not force class members to do business with the defendant in order to receive a benefit," lawyer Robert Chojnacki argued in court. "Here the class counsel gets $15 million in cash and class members get coupons." The deal would also reportedly provide $20,000 each to two class representatives and $45 million in payments to a group of charities should TM credits go unredeemed. The judge has yet to issue a ruling on the matter. TRIAGE STAFFING: Sued for Hiring Suspect in Hepatitis C Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that despite his questionable employment history, a staffing agency hired the roaming hospital technician who is suspected of exposing an untold number of hospital patients to hepatitis C by reusing syringes after injecting himself with drugs, a class action claims in Federal Court. Five named plaintiffs sued Triage Staffing in a class action, and another man sued it in a separate complaint. David Kwiatkowski was arrested on federal charges. He is suspected of stealing syringes filled with fentanyl, a painkiller, from the cardiac catheterization lab in Exeter Hospital in New Hampshire, injecting himself, refilling the syringes with something else and replacing them. "As of July 13, 2012, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services has announced that 32 people, including Mr. Kwiatkowski and Mr. Fowler, associated with the Exeter Hospital cardiac catheterization laboratory have tested positive for hepatitis C," according to Mr. Fowler's individual complaint. Triage Staffing is the only defendant in both cases. Triage Staffing "employs and places health care workers known as 'travelers,'" the class action states. "Triage hires these 'travelers' and places them to work at hospitals around the United States on a contract basis for short durations of time, often approximately 13 weeks. Such 'travelers' often provide short-term staffing assistance to hospitals that Triage contracts with. "Upon information and belief, Triage hired one David Kwiatkowski as a traveling cardiac catheterization laboratory technician and, in March 2011, placed Mr. Kwiatkowski at Exeter Hospital in Exeter, New Hampshire." The class claims that Triage hired Mr. Kwiatkowski despite his questionable record: "Upon information and belief, prior to arriving at Exeter Hospital, staff members at some of the hospitals where Mr. Kwiatkowski had previously worked reported that Mr. Kwiatkowski often told stories about himself that later proved to be false. For example, Mr. Kwiatkowski frequently claimed that: "a. he played baseball at the University of Michigan; "b. his fiancee had died under tragic circumstances; and "c. he suffered from cancer. "Upon information and belief, prior to coming to Exeter Hospital, Mr. Kwiatkowski was terminated by another hospital for falsifying information on a timesheet. "Upon information and belief, prior to coming to Exeter Hospital, on at least two occasions, needles were found in a restroom outside the cardiac catheterization laboratory at a hospital where Mr. Kwiatkowski worked. After Mr. Kwiatkowski left that hospital, no further such incidents occurred. "Upon information and belief, prior to coming to Exeter Hospital, Mr. Kwiatkowski was involved in a drug diversion incident when he worked as a contract employee in 2008: "a. A hospital employee observed Mr. Kwiatkowski enter an operating room, lift his shirt, put a syringe in his pants, move his arms quickly near a medication cart, and exit the room. A subsequent review of the narcotics in the room showed that a syringe containing Fentanyl, a potent opioid narcotic with a high abuse potential, was missing and that it had been replaced by a syringe containing a different liquid (which was later found not to be Fentanyl). "b. Mr. Kwiatkowski was acting erratically and was sweating. "c. Mr. Kwiatkowski agreed to be searched shortly after the discovery and three empty syringes bearing Fentanyl labels were found on his person. An empty morphine sulfate syringe and a needle were later found in his locker. "d. A drug test found Fentanyl and other opiates in Mr. Kwiatkowski's system. "Upon information and belief, Mr. Kwiatkowski tested positive for hepatitis C in June 2010." The accusations have been front-page news throughout New England last week. The class claims that "in October 2011, after Mr. Kwiatkowski had been working in its cardiac catheterization laboratory for six months, Exeter Hospital hired Mr. Kwiatkowski as a full-time cardiac catheterization laboratory technician. "Upon information and belief, in or about May 2012, medical staff at Exeter Hospital learned that several patients had tested positive for Hepatitis C. Further investigation revealed that all of these patients had undergone recent procedures in Exeter Hospital's cardiac catheterization laboratory. "Upon information and belief, in June 2012, Mr. Kwiatkowski fled the state of New Hampshire and was subsequently admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Massachusetts. "As of July 13, 2012, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services has announced that 32 people, including Mr. Kwiatkowski and Mr. Fowler, associated with the Exeter Hospital cardiac catheterization laboratory have tested positive for hepatitis C. "Over 1,200 patients, associated with Exeter Hospital in New Hampshire have been tested and 32 patients have been identified who are infected with the same strain of hepatitis C as Mr. Kwiatkowski. "On July 24, 2012, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services announced that over 6,000 more Exeter Hospital patients will be tested for hepatitis C." CNN reported on Kwiatkowski's employment history, claiming that Triage had placed him at a long list of hospitals, including Oakwood Hospital in Trenton, Mich.; Saint Francis Hospital in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center; the Southern Maryland Hospital in Clinton, Md.; Johns Hopkins; Maryland General Hospital in Baltimore; Hays Medical Center in Hays, Kan.; and the Houston Medical Center in Warner Robins, Ga. Mr. Kwiatkowski faces federal charges of obtaining controlled substances by fraud and tampering with a consumer product, according to CNN and wire reports. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision and negligent entrustment. They are represented by Domenic Paolini, with Paolini and Haley, which also represents the man who filed the individual complaint. A copy of the Complaint in French, et al. v. Triage Staffing Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00255 (D. Neb.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/26/HepC1.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Domenic Paolini, Esq. PAOLINI & HALEY PC 28 State Street, 37th Floor Boston, MA 02109-1775 Telephone: (617) 951-0300 E-mail: dpaolini@paoliniandhaley.com WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Inaccessible POS Devices/Terminals ------------------------------------------------------------- Center for Independent Living, Inc., Janet Brown, and Lisa Kilgore on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-03885 (N.D. Calif., July 25, 2012) arises out of Wal-Mart's policy and practice of continuing to use inaccessible point of sale ("POS") devices that deny persons in wheelchairs and scooters equal access to the benefits and services of those terminals. The lawsuit challenges ongoing discrimination by Wal-Mart based on its refusal to provide accessible POS terminals for consumers with mobility disabilities, who use wheelchairs and scooters, at many of Wal-Mart's retail stores throughout California, the Plaintiffs contend. They allege that POS terminals at multiple Wal-Mart stores are mounted at inaccessible heights so that customers, who use wheelchairs or scooters, have to struggle to process their payment securely or cannot see the display screens or independently use the terminals. CIL is a non-profit organization headquartered in Berkeley, California, and is the first service and advocacy organization founded by and for persons with disabilities. Ms. Brown is a resident of Pittsburgh, California, while Ms. Kilgore is a resident of San Pablo, California. Both ladies have mobility disability. They are using wheelchairs and regularly visits a Wal-Mart store in their area. Wal-Mart is a Delaware corporation with stores throughout California. Wal-Mart is the world's largest retailer and private employer. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence W. Paradis, Esq. Kevin Knestrick, Esq. Christine Chuang, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 E-mail: general@dralegal.org - and - Bill Lann Lee, Esq. Catha Worthman, Esq. Julia Campins, Esq. LEWIS FEINBERG LEE RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 E-mail: blee@lewisfeinberg.com cworthman@lewisfeinberg.com jcampins@lewisfeinberg.com - and - Arlene Mayerson, Esq. Shira Wakschlag, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555 Facsimile: (510) 841-8645 E-mail: amayerson@dredf.org swakschlag@dredf.org WAL-MART STORES: Disability Rights Advocates File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- CBS News reports that disability rights advocates filed a federal lawsuit on July 25 against Walmart, claiming the retail giant refuses to make payment machines accessible to customers who use wheelchairs and scooters. The plaintiffs allege that Bentonville, Ark.-based Walmart knowingly placed point-of-sale terminals beyond the reach of disabled customers at many of its more than 200 stores in California -- in violation of state law and the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act. The lack of accessible payment devices makes it difficult or impossible for disabled customers to independently pay for goods with a credit or debit card, according to the lawsuit. Many must ask cashiers to read the charges, enter their personal identification number or PIN or sign on their behalf to authorize the transaction. The plaintiff's attorney Bill Lann Lee said Walmart "should be an industry leader, not a defender of discrimination." "Point-of-sale machines are the wave of the future in American retail. They should be accessible, convenient and secure to use for all customers," Mr. Lee said. Walmart spokeswoman Ashley Hardie could not comment on the lawsuit itself, but she said the company is committed to serving customers with disabilities. "Our goal is that every point-of-sale machine be accessible within the regulations of the (Americans with Disabilities Act) and California law," she said. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco by the Berkeley-based Center for Independent Living and two disabled individuals. They are represented by the groups Disability Rights Advocates and Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. "I feel unsafe when I check out at Walmart," said plaintiff Janet Brown, a wheelchair user from Pittsburg. "I can't reach the payment device on my own, read the display screen, enter my PIN or sign the screen to complete the transaction. I have to share my private PIN with the cashier, which I hate to do." The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit so that it could cover all disabled people who have had trouble using payment devices at Walmart stores in California. The lawsuit, which attorneys say is the first of its kind, seeks unspecified damages and the installation of accessible payment machines at the company's California stores. Hard-to-reach credit-card readers are common at retail stores throughout the world, but disability advocates say they are launching their campaign to change that by targeting Walmart, said Arlene Mayerson, directing attorney at the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. "Why Walmart? Because they are the biggest retailer in the world," Ms. Mayerson said. "They should be able to do it right." WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $335-Mil. Expense for Embraco Matters ------------------------------------------------------------- Whirlpool Corporation disclosed in its July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it has incurred, in the aggregate, charges of approximately $335 million in connection with antitrust lawsuits and investigations relating to its Embraco business in Brazil. Beginning in February 2009, the Company's compressor business headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations of the global compressor industry by government authorities in various jurisdictions. In 2011, Embraco sales represented approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales. Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and concluded their investigations. In connection with these agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust law with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from 2004 through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments. Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009, Embraco has been named as a defendant in related antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to 2009. Several other compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the government investigations have also been named as defendants in the litigation. United States federal lawsuits instituted on behalf of purported purchasers and containing class action allegations have been combined in one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Lawsuits containing class action allegations are also pending in Canada. Additional lawsuits may be filed by purported purchasers. In connection with these agreements and other Embraco antitrust matters, the Company has incurred, in the aggregate, charges of approximately $335 million, including fines, defense costs and other expenses. These charges have been recorded within interest and sundry income (expense). At June 30, 2012, $174 million remains accrued, with installment payments of $149 million, plus interest, remaining to be made to government authorities at various times through 2015. The Company says it continues to work toward resolution of ongoing government investigations in other jurisdictions, to defend the related antitrust lawsuits and to take other actions to minimize its potential exposure. The final outcome and impact of these matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. The Company establishes accruals only for those matters where it determines that a loss is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While it is currently not possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of costs which the Company may incur in connection with these matters, such costs could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending against numerous class action lawsuits in various jurisdictions in the United States and Canada relating to certain of its front load washing machines. The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty. The complaints generally seek unspecified compensatory, consequential and punitive damages. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them. At this point, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any. In addition, the Company is currently defending a number of other class action lawsuits in federal and state courts related to the manufacturing and sale of its products and alleging claims which include breach of contract, breach of warranty, product defect, fraud, violation of federal and state consumer protection acts and negligence. The Company is also involved in various other legal actions arising in the normal course of business. The Company disputes the merits of these lawsuits and actions, and intends to vigorously defend them. Management believes, based upon its current knowledge, after taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such lawsuits and actions discussed, and after taking into account current litigation reserves, that the outcome of these matters currently pending against Whirlpool should not have a material adverse effect, if any, on the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. No further updates were reported in the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. YUM! BRANDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for class decertification in the class action lawsuit commenced by Moeller, et al. against a subsidiary of YUM! Brands, Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2012. On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class. Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility- related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the "CDPA"). Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class. On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages. On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. On August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to queue lines. On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a definitive list of remaining issues and to select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial. The exemplar trial for that restaurant began on June 6, 2011. The trial was bifurcated and the first stage addressed whether violations existed at the restaurant. Twelve alleged violations of the ADA and state law were tried. On October 5, 2011, the court issued its trial decision. The court found liability for the twelve items, finding that they were once out of compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility standards. The court also found that classwide injunctive relief is warranted. The court declined to order injunctive relief at this time, however, citing the pendency of Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive and damages class. In a separate order, the court vacated the date previously set for an exemplar trial for damages on the single restaurant. On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. The Supreme Court held that the class in that case was improperly certified. The same legal theory was used to certify the class in the Moeller case, and Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class on August 3, 2011. During the exemplar trial, the court observed that the restaurant had been in full compliance with all laws since March 2010, and Taco Bell argues in its decertification motion that, in light of the decision in the Dukes case, no damages class can be certified and that injunctive relief is not appropriate, regardless of class status. On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the certified class to include a damages class. Briefing on Taco Bell's motion to decertify and plaintiffs' motion to amend the class is complete. No hearing has been scheduled by the court. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. Taco Bell has taken steps to address potential architectural and structural compliance issues at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal disability access laws. The costs associated with addressing these issues have not significantly impacted the Company's results of operations. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell. YUM! BRANDS: Final Hearing on "RGM" Suit Settlement on Aug. 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval hearing in connection with YUM! Brands, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by restaurant general managers is scheduled for August 17, 2012, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2012. On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior Court. On August 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell restaurant general manager ("RGM") purporting to represent all current and former RGMs and Market Training Managers (MTMs) who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California since August 2002. The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties. The cases were consolidated in San Diego County as of September 7, 2006. On January 29, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' class certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of RGMs and MTMs but denied class certification on the meal period claims. The court ruled that the case would be tried to the bench rather than a jury. Trial testimony began on February 14, 2012. On June 1, 2012, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the terms upon which the parties agreed to settle this matter. On June 4, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for August 17, 2012. The incremental costs associated with the settlement were recorded in the quarter ended June 16, 2012. YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in "Hines" Class Suit Set for August 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ A motion to decertify the class in the class action lawsuit initiated by Domonique Hines against a YUM! Brands, Inc. subsidiary will be heard on August 20, 2012, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2012. On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and waiting time penalties. Plaintiff is a former non-managerial KFC restaurant employee. KFC filed an answer denying plaintiff's claims and allegations and removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on October 29, 2009. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in May 2010, and the District Court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class on the meal and rest break claims but denied the motion to certify a class regarding alleged off-the-clock work in October 2010. On November 1, 2010, KFC filed a motion requesting a stay of the case pending a decision from the California Supreme Court regarding the applicable standard for employer provision of meal and rest breaks. In January 2011, the District Court stayed the entire action pending a decision from the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego. Subsequent to the California Supreme Court's decision in April 2012, the stay was vacated. On May 25, 2012, KFCC filed a motion to decertify the class in light of the Brinker decision. KFC's motion will be heard on August 20, 2012. KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in Wage & Hour Suit vs. Unit Set for Aug. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing is scheduled for August 3, 2012, in the consolidated wage and hour class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of YUM! Brands, Inc., according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2012. Taco Bell Corp. was named as a defendant in a number of putative class action lawsuits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act and statutory "waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010, the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims on December 30, 2010, and the class certification hearing took place in June 2011. Taco Bell also filed a motion to stay the proceedings until the California Supreme Court ruled on two cases concerning meal and rest breaks, and the court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the meal and rest break claims on August 22, 2011. On September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the certification of the remaining vacation and final pay claims. On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego concerning meal and rest breaks. Thereafter, the court vacated the stay and ordered the parties to file briefs concerning certification of a class for the meal and rest break claims. A hearing is scheduled for August 3, 2012. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. YUM! BRANDS: Opt-In Period in "Smith" Suit Will Close August 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- The opt-in period in the class action lawsuit commenced by Mark Smith against a YUM! Brands, Inc. subsidiary will close on August 23, 2012, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2012. On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, on March 11, 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws of sixteen different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims, but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion April 21, 2012. The opt-in period will close on August 23, 2012. Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell to Answer "Rosales" Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary is preparing to answer the third amended complaint in the class action lawsuit filed by Marisela Rosales, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2012. On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior Court. The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. The state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010. After the denial of class certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend her lawsuit, which plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012. Taco Bell filed its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 15, 2012. Taco Bell again filed a responsive pleading and thereafter plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on June 11, 2012. Taco Bell intends to answer the Third Amended Complaint and begin discovery. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. YUM! BRANDS: Unit Wants Class in "Whittington" Suit Decertified --------------------------------------------------------------- YUM! Brands, Inc. disclosed in its July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2012, that its subsidiary plan to seek decertification in the class action lawsuit commenced by Jacquelyn Whittington. On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week. The plaintiff also purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily overtime after 12 hours worked in a day. The Company has been dismissed from the case without prejudice. Taco Bell filed its answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class discovery, which is currently on-going. On September 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs did not move for certification of a separate class of Colorado assistant managers under Colorado state law. The court heard the motion on January 10, 2012, granted conditional certification and ordered the notice of the opt-in class be sent to the putative class members. The notice was sent to class members on February 24, 2012, and the opt-in period ended on May 21, 2012. Approximately 488 individuals submitted opt-in forms. After further discovery, Taco Bell plans to seek decertification of the class. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. * No. of Federal Securities Class Actions Down in 1st Half of 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Barry B. Burr, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that S&P 500 companies were named in 10 of 88 federal securities class- action filings in the first six months of 2012, compared to eight of 94 filings in the same period last year, according to a report by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research. Overall, the 88 federal securities class actions represent a 6% decline from the first half of last year. For the first six months of 2012, a total of $249 billion of defendant companies' market value was lost from the trading day with the highest market capitalization during the class-action period to the trading day immediately following the end of the class-action period, the report, "Securities Class Action Filings - 2012 Mid-Year Assessment," said. By contrast, the loss was $256 billion in the first half of last year. "Looking over the horizon, the LIBOR-litigation industry is clearly a sector to watch for years to come," Joseph Grundfest, clearinghouse director, said in a joint statement with Cornerstone about the report. "The magnitude of the potential exposures and the complexity of the underlying damages claims will likely generate large amounts of litigation activity in many geographies. Much of that litigation activity will occur away from the U.S. class-action securities fraud sector, but more lawsuits are virtually assured." The decline in total filings in the first half of the year was primarily because of a big drop in Chinese reverse-merger filings as well as in merger-and-acquisition filings, the statement said. In the past six months, CRM filings were down 79% to five and M&A- related filings were down 67% to seven, the report said. Through a process known as a reverse merger, or reverse takeover, Chinese and other non-U.S. companies gain access to U.S. equity markets "when an existing U.S.-listed shell company acquires a non-listed firm, at which point the target firm's shareholders take control of the combined entity," according to information in another Stanford report. ********* 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 * * *