/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120806.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, August 6, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 154
Headlines
AFFINION GROUP: Still Defends Trilegiant-Related Class Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Argument in "Scott" Suit Over Prof. Fees on Aug. 22
ALTRIA GROUP: Court Struck All Class Claims in Wage & Hour Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Defendants in "Brown" Suit Ask for Writ of Mandate
ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement of "George" Suits Approved in June
ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Suits Remain Pending in Canada
ALTRIA GROUP: Reconsideration Bid Denial in "Smith" Suit Appealed
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action for TCPA Violation
BP EXPLORATION: Faces Suit Over Oil Spill Insurance Coverage
CANADA: Negotiator Appointed to Resolve Veterans' Class Action
CANADA: City of Montreal Faces Class Action Over Student Arrests
DUKE ENERGY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in N.C.
EBAY INC: Online Vendors File Class Action Over Listing Fees
ENTRUST GROUP: Faces Class Action Over IRA-Based Ponzi Scheme
EQUIFAX INC: Appeals From Suit Settlement Order Remain Pending
FBR & CO: Appeal in Thornburg Mortgage Suit Remains Pending
FBR & CO: Securities Suit vs. Unit Still Pending in Colorado
FBR & CO: Unit Continues to Defend Imperial IPO Suits
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Suit vs. Unit Over Bank Charges Still Pending
GARDEN FRESH: Recalls 13,600 Pounds of BBQ Chicken Salads
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Securities Class Action for $26.6 Million
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Batesville Casket Suit Appeal Remains Pending
HSBC BANK: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Cellular Phone Calls
LIVE NATION: Anti-Competitive Practices MDL Remains Pending
LIVE NATION: Still Awaits OK of Settlement in Ticketing Fees Suit
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Witness Testifies in Class Action v. Arpaio
MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
MIDWEST FOLDING: Recalls 5,300 Stage and Riser Caddies
MOTRICITY INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
NETFLIX: November 14 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
NUFARM: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $43.5 Million
PERKINS COIE: Judge Orders Arbitration in Ex-Attorney's Suit
PET VALU: Ontario Judge Invalidates Class Action Op-Outs
QBE: To Reduce Force-Placed Insurance Premiums After Class Action
RITE AID: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
SAN MIGUEL: Recalls 48 Cases of Comfort Greens Kit With Onions
SOUTHERN WINE: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over ACTOS Due to Cancer Risk
TEXTRON INC: 1st Circuit Affirmed Suit Dismissal in June
THQ INC: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action in Calif. Over uDraw
VALVE: Updates Steam Subscriber Agreement to Avert Class Actions
ZYNGA INC: Faces Suit for Securities Law Violations
ZYNGA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
ZYNGA INC: Sued for Violating Federal Securities Laws
ZYNGA INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
ZYNGA INC: Newman Ferrara Files Class Action in California
*********
AFFINION GROUP: Still Defends Trilegiant-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. continues to defend class action
lawsuits arising from its subsidiary, Trilegiant Corporation's
sale of membership programs, according to the Company's July 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
On July 13, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Affinion Group, LLC ("AGLLC"), Trilegiant Corporation, Apollo
Global Management LLC, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona. The complaint
asserted similar causes of action as are asserted in the
Connecticut litigation on behalf of putative nationwide classes in
connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs.
On October 18, 2011, Trilegiant, AGLLC, and Apollo filed a motion
to stay, to which the plaintiff never responded. On November 1,
2011, Trilegiant and AGLLC filed a motion to compel arbitration,
and Apollo joined in that motion and also sought dismissal. On
December 15, 2011, the plaintiff sought to dismiss the action
without prejudice, and on December 21, 2011, Trilegiant, Affinion,
and Apollo filed a brief urging the court to dismiss the action
with prejudice. On January 17, 2012, Chase filed a motion to
transfer this case to the Eastern District of New York ("EDNY").
On or about February 29, 2012, the case was dismissed without
prejudice. The same lead plaintiff's law firm also filed a
substantially similar class action lawsuit against the same
defendants as well as Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Avis Budget Car
Rental LLC, Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Bank of America, N.A. in
the United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Portland Division, on July 14, 2011. On December 27, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice,
and the case was terminated by the court on January 6, 2012.
On August 4, 2011, those same lawyers filed another substantially
similar class action lawsuit against the same defendants sued in
the Arizona lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio. On December 23, 2011, the plaintiff
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Trilegiant, AGLLC, and
Apollo. On February 10, 2012, the court entered an order
dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On
August 8, 2011, those same lawyers filed a substantially similar
class action lawsuit against AGLLC, Trilegiant Corporation, Apollo
Global Management, LLC, and American Express Company in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On
December 5, 2011, the court granted American Express's motion to
compel arbitration. On December 14, 2011, the plaintiff filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal as to Trilegiant, AGLLC, and Apollo,
and the case was closed by the court on the same day. Finally, on
October 25, 2011, these same lawyers filed a substantially similar
class action lawsuit against AGLLC, Trilegiant, Apollo Global
Management, LLC, IAC/InterActiveCorp., Shoebuy.com, and Chase Bank
USA, N.A. in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. On December 14, 2011, the plaintiff filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal as to all of the defendants except
Chase, and the case was terminated by the court on or about
February 21, 2012.
On October 6, 2011, the plaintiffs in the preceding class action
cases (other than the class action cases that were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
March 6, 2012, and March 25, 2012, respectively) filed a motion
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking coordinated pretrial
proceedings of those class action cases with the case that was
filed on June 17, 2010, in the United States Court for the
District of Connecticut. (The plaintiffs later sought to include
within the proposed consolidated action the case they filed on
October 25, 2011). Plaintiffs in those actions argued that the
factual allegations in the cases raised common issues that made
pretrial transfer appropriate; they sought transfer and
consolidation of the cases to the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut. All of the defendants opposed that
motion. On December 9, 2011, the JPML entered an order denying
consolidation and transfer of these cases.
ALTRIA GROUP: Argument in "Scott" Suit Over Prof. Fees on Aug. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Argument is scheduled for August 22, 2012, in connection with the
issue over professional fees in the "Scott" class action lawsuit,
according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.
Following a 2004 verdict that awarded plaintiffs approximately
$590 million to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program and a
series of appeals and other post-trial motions, Altria Group,
Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"),
recorded in the second quarter of 2011 a provision on its
condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $36 million
related to the judgment and approximately $5 million related to
interest, which was in addition to a previously recorded provision
of approximately $30 million. In August 2011, PM USA paid its
share of the judgment and interest in an amount of approximately
$70 million. The defendants' payments have been deposited into a
court-supervised fund that is intended to pay for smoking
cessation programs.
In October 2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for an award
of attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs' counsel sought
additional fees from defendants of up to $673 million.
Additionally, plaintiffs' counsel requested an award of
approximately $13 million in costs.
In March 2012, the trial court denied defendants' motion
challenging plaintiffs' counsel's request that defendants pay
their attorneys' fees directly, as opposed to out of the court-
supervised fund. Defendants subsequently filed a petition for a
supervisory writ challenging the decision to the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeal.
On May 10, 2012, the parties reached a settlement on the amount of
fees and costs to be awarded to plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs
agreed that any recovery of fees and costs would come from the
court-supervised fund, not the defendants, and indicated they
would seek approximately $114 million from the fund. In exchange,
defendants agreed to waive 50% of their right to a refund of any
unspent money in the fund after the 10-year program is completed.
The agreement is not contingent on the trial court's granting
plaintiffs' request for additional costs and fees. The trustee of
the fund intervened to challenge whether the plaintiffs' lawyers
should get any money from the fund or, alternatively, the amount
they would recover from the fund. Plaintiffs and defendants are
challenging the standing of the trustee. Argument is scheduled
for August 22, 2012.
ALTRIA GROUP: Court Struck All Class Claims in Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California trial court struck all class allegations from the
wage and hour class action lawsuit commenced in California, Altria
Group, Inc. disclosed in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.
In September 2011, two former sales representatives employed in
California by Altria Group Distribution Company ("AGDC") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under California's wage and hour
laws. The plaintiffs seek overtime pay, recovery of certain
wages, reimbursement of business expenses and other non-monetary
relief and penalties. In November 2011, the plaintiffs amended
their complaint to add an additional claim for penalties under
California's Private Attorney General Act. The case has been
transferred to the Central District of California. In January
2012, AGDC moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims, which
motion was denied on April 16, 2012. Plaintiffs have since
dropped all class-action allegations and are proceeding only on
the individual claims of the two named plaintiffs. On May 24,
2012, the trial court entered an order striking all class
allegations from the complaint.
Following this quarter, Altria Group, Inc. says it will no longer
report on this matter.
ALTRIA GROUP: Defendants in "Brown" Suit Ask for Writ of Mandate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. is asking an appeals court to issue a writ
of mandate ordering a trial court to vacate its denial of a motion
to decertify the class in the lawsuit alleging violations of the
California Business and Professions Code, Altria Group, Inc.,
disclosed in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.
In June 1997, a lawsuit (Brown) was filed in California state
court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including
Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA"), and others, have violated California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair,
unlawful and fraudulent business practices. Class certification
was granted as to plaintiffs' claims that class members are
entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased
during the class periods and injunctive relief. In September
2004, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to plaintiffs' claims attacking defendants' cigarette
advertising and promotion and denied defendants' motion for
summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims based on allegedly false
affirmative statements. In March 2005, the court granted
defendants' motion to decertify the class based on a California
law, which inter alia limits the ability to bring a lawsuit to
only those plaintiffs who have "suffered injury in fact" and "lost
money or property" as a result of defendants' alleged statutory
violations ("Proposition 64").
In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the
trial court's order decertifying the class. In May 2009, the
California Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision that
was affirmed by the appellate court and remanded the case to the
trial court. In March 2010, the trial court granted
reconsideration of its September 2004 order granting partial
summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs'
"Lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions issued since
its order was issued, including the United States Supreme Court's
ruling in Good, thereby reinstating plaintiffs' "Lights" claims.
Since the trial court's prior ruling decertifying the class was
reversed on appeal by the California Supreme Court, the parties
and the court are treating all claims currently being asserted by
the plaintiffs as certified, subject, however, to defendants'
challenge to the class representatives' standing to assert their
claims. The class is defined as people who, at the time they were
residents of California, smoked in California one or more
cigarettes between June 10, 1993, and April 23, 2001, and who were
exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California.
In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking collateral
estoppel effect from the findings in the case brought by the
Department of Justice. In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary resolution of legal issues regarding
restitutionary relief. The trial court denied both of plaintiffs'
motions in November 2010. In November 2010, defendants filed a
motion seeking a determination that Brown class members who were
also part of the class in Daniels (a previously disclosed consumer
fraud case in which the California Supreme Court affirmed summary
judgment in PM USA's favor based on preemption and First Amendment
grounds) are precluded by the Daniels judgment from recovering in
Brown. This motion was denied in December 2010. Defendants
sought review of this decision before the Fourth District Court of
Appeal but were denied review in March 2011. In January 2012,
defendants filed motions for a determination that the class
representatives lack standing and are not typical or adequate to
represent the class and to decertify the class.
On May 24, 2012, the trial court decertified the class as to
plaintiffs' claims alleging that the defendants falsely denied
nicotine manipulation and that they concealed the dangers and
addictiveness of smoking, finding that none of the named
representatives could adequately represent the class on these
issues. The trial court denied defendants' decertification motion
as to the claim regarding "Lights" cigarettes and found that only
one of the four named class representatives may assert this claim.
As a result, the case is proceeding as a "Lights"-only class
action brought by the sole remaining class representative. The
trial court also continued the trial date from October 5, 2012, to
April 19, 2013. On July 23, 2012, defendants filed a petition in
the Court of Appeal asking the court to issue a writ of mandate
ordering the trial court to vacate its denial of defendants'
motion to decertify and to instead decertify the class.
ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement of "George" Suits Approved in June
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class-wide settlement for two class action lawsuits relating
to Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Thrift Plan was approved in June 2012,
according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.
Four participants in the Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Thrift Plan
("Kraft Thrift Plan"), a defined contribution plan, filed a class
action complaint (George II) on behalf of all participants and
beneficiaries of the Kraft Thrift Plan in July 2008 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Named defendants in this action
include Altria Corporate Services, Inc. (now Altria Client
Services Inc.) and certain company committees that allegedly had a
relationship to the Kraft Thrift Plan. Plaintiffs request, among
other remedies, that defendants restore to the Kraft Thrift Plan
all losses improperly incurred.
In December 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. In addition
to dismissing certain claims made by plaintiffs for equitable
relief under ERISA as to all defendants, the court dismissed
claims alleging excessive administrative fees and mismanagement of
company stock funds as to one of the Altria Group, Inc.
defendants. In February 2010, the court granted a joint
stipulation dismissing the fee and stock fund claims without
prejudice as to the remaining defendants, including Altria Client
Services Inc. Accordingly, the only claim remaining at this time
in George II relates to the alleged negligence of plan fiduciaries
for including the Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund as Kraft
Thrift Plan investment options. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification in March 2010, which the court granted in
August 2010. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in
January 2011, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. In March 2011, defendants filed a motion to vacate the
class certification in light of recent federal judicial precedent.
In July 2011, the court granted defendants' summary judgment
motion in part, finding that claims for periods prior to July 2,
2002, were time barred, and that the defendants properly monitored
the funds. The court also denied plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment. Remaining in the case are claims after July 2,
2002, relating to whether it was prudent to retain actively
managed investments (Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund) in the
Kraft Thrift Plan after 1999. In July 2011, the court also
granted defendants' motion to vacate the class certification, and
allowed plaintiffs leave to file a new motion for class
certification in light of recent precedent and the court's summary
judgment findings. Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is
pending before the court.
In August 2011, Altria Client Services Inc. and a company
committee that allegedly had a relationship to the Kraft Thrift
Plan were added as defendants in another class action previously
brought by the same plaintiffs in 2006 (George I), in which
plaintiffs allege defendants breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA by offering company stock funds in a unitized format and by
allegedly overpaying for recordkeeping services.
The parties have reached a court-approved class-wide settlement
that does not require any payment by the Altria Group, Inc.
defendants. On June 27, 2012, the class-wide settlement for both
cases was approved and a final order and judgment was issued.
ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Suits Remain Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action
lawsuits in various state and federal courts. In general, these
cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular
state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in
scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claim of
physical injury as well.
Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving Altria Group, Inc.'s
wholly-owned subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), in
Arkansas (1), California (1), the District of Columbia (2),
Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1),
Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey
(6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1),
Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).
PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with
other cigarette manufacturers, in six actions filed in the
Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan
and British Columbia. In Saskatchewan and British Columbia,
plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who
suffer or have suffered from various diseases including chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer
after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in
Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification
of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes.
No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
ALTRIA GROUP: Reconsideration Bid Denial in "Smith" Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the "Smith" class action lawsuit pending in Kansas
have appealed a trial court's denial of their motion for
reconsideration of a ruling granting defendants' summary judgment
bid, Altria Group, Inc. said in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.
As of July 23, 2012, one case remains pending in Kansas (Smith) in
which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including PM USA and
Altria Group, Inc., conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation
of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification has
been granted. In March 2012, the trial court granted defendants'
motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs sought the trial court's
reconsideration of its decision, but on June 22, 2012, the trial
court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs
have appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Kansas.
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action for TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Carol Duke and Jack Poster, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Bank of America, N.A.; Bank of America
Corporation; and FIA Card Services, N.A., Case No. 3:12-cv-04009
(N.D. Calif., July 30, 2012) alleges that the Defendants violates
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have violated the TCPA by
contacting the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated on their
cellular telephones via an "automatic telephone dialing system,"
and by using "an artificial or prerecorded voice," without their
prior express consent.
Ms. Duke is a resident of Kentfield, California. Mr. Poster is a
resident of Redlands, California.
BANA is a national banking association with its main office in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and operates in every state, including
California. Bank of America Corp. is a Delaware corporation that
maintains corporate headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
FIA is a Delaware corporation that maintains corporate
headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bank of America Corp.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
- and -
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com
esantacana@lchb.com
- and -
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
BP EXPLORATION: Faces Suit Over Oil Spill Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that eight insurance companies
sued BP and Transocean in Federal Court, seeking clarification on
which gets how much of $200 million in insurance coverage for the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
A copy of the Complaint in Great American Insurance Company of New
York, et al. v. Exploration & Production Inc., Case No. 12-cv-
01978 (E.D. La.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/BPOilSpill.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard N. Dicharry, Esq.
Evans Martin McLeod, Esq.
Kyle S. Moran, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
365 Canal Street | Suite 2000
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: 504-566-1311
E-mail: Richard.Dicharry@phelps.com
Marty.McLeod@phelps.com
Kyle.Moran@phelps.com
CANADA: Negotiator Appointed to Resolve Veterans' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Government of Canada announced the appointment of Professor
Stephen J. Toope, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University
of British Columbia (UBC), as federal representative in
negotiations to resolve the Manuge class action, regarding the
long term disability benefits to former members of the Canadian
Forces (CF).
"The well-being of both our serving and retired members is
important for our government," said the Honourable Peter MacKay,
Minister of National Defence. "This appointment further
underlines our intent to work towards a positive resolution in
this matter."
Prior to joining UBC, Professor Toope was President of the Pierre
Elliott Trudeau Foundation, a position he held from 2002 to 2006.
From 1994 to 1999, Professor Toope served as the dean of McGill
University's Faculty of Law. Previously, he served as Law Clerk
to the Right Honourable Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court
of Canada from 1986 to 1987. He continues to conduct research on
many aspects of international law and is currently working on
issues of human rights and culture, and the origins of
international obligation in international society.
If a settlement of the class action is reached between the
parties, it will need to be approved by the Federal Court.
The Canadian Press reports that a Federal Court ruling in May
found Ottawa was acting illegally by clawing back long-term
disability benefits from veterans who were also receiving pain and
suffering payments and other awards.
The clawbacks ended in July, and the "vast majority" of those
affected have seen the results reflected in their benefit checks,
Mr. MacKay said during a news conference last week in New
Brunswick.
Not everyone is satisfied, however. Veterans whose additional
rewards and payments exceed the limit of 75 per cent of their
military salary -- often those who were most severely injured --
say they're still not being treated fairly.
Advocates for veterans rights have said those former soldiers with
the most grievous injuries are entitled to receive the maximum
benefit, particularly since many can't work and must rely solely
on the pain and suffering awards they already receive.
"There are some who were in a different category and there is
ongoing negotiations, as you know, to put into effect that
decision," Mr. MacKay said.
"It was a very complicated issue that went back ten years or more
and so to reverse that, that situation, it does require further
negotiations. We're moving forward as quickly as possible."
Dennis Manuge, a Halifax veteran, launched the class-action suit
in 2007 to end the clawback, arguing it was unjust to treat pain
and suffering awards as income.
CANADA: City of Montreal Faces Class Action Over Student Arrests
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit has been launched
against the city of Montreal on behalf of protesters who were
arrested May 23 during a mass demonstration opposing tuition fee
hikes.
Lawyer Marc Chetrit has filed the case in Quebec Superior Court
alleging that the city and its police department violated charter
rights during the arrest and detention of more than 500 people.
"People were held with their hands tied behind their backs, with
no access to water or washrooms for sometimes up to five hours.
They were sometimes held for up to eight hours," said Mr. Chetrit.
In an interview with CBC on July 31, Mr. Chetrit would not specify
a dollar figure he will seek for damages as part of the lawsuit.
But he said plaintiffs in a similar class action suit in Montreal,
15 years ago, were awarded C$2,500 each.
Nightly tuition protests ramped up in Montreal after the
provincial government adopted Bill 78, put in place to place
restrictions on demonstrations.
The law served to attract support from civil rights groups. Many
groups joined students and their supporters in the streets to
oppose the new law and to put pressure on the government to
negotiate with students.
On May 23, Montreal authorities moved in on protesters, kettling
them and arresting at least 518 people.
The sweeping crackdown by authorities marked a new single night
record for arrests since the start of the tuition conflict.
The majority of those arrested in Montreal faced fines, police
said.
That night, in Quebec City, police detained 176 people under the
provisions laid out in Bill 78. That demonstration was declared
illegal because protesters refused to give police their route in
advance, one of the provisions of the new law.
Police later ticketed the detainees for blocking the roadway,
under the traffic act.
DUKE ENERGY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott LLP filed a securities class action complaint against
Duke Energy Corporation, the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
and certain of its Board of Directors in the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The
lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and was filed on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of Duke
Energy between June 11, 2012 and July 9, 2012, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that in January 2011, Duke Energy reached an
agreement to merge with Progress Energy Incorporated. As part of
that agreement, Duke Energy agreed that Progress Energy's CEO,
William Johnson, would serve as CEO of the post-Merger Company.
Thereafter, in all of Duke Energy's Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and other public disclosures prior to the
closing of the Merger on July 2, 2012, the Company consistently
represented that Johnson would be the CEO of post-Merger Duke
Energy. The complaint alleges that Defendants' statements to this
effect during the Class Period were false and misleading. Indeed,
it is alleged that at the time these statements were made, the
Board of Directors of Duke Energy had already secretly conspired
to force Johnson to resign immediately following completion of the
Merger.
On July 3, 2012, Duke Energy revealed that it had forced Johnson
to resign as CEO within hours of the closing of the Merger.
Following the disclosure of this news, the North Carolina Attorney
General and regulatory agencies announced investigations into the
Company's actions. The complaint alleges that in the days
following these revelations, the price of the Company's common
stock declined precipitously. You can view a copy of the complaint
at: http://is.gd/nneTkP
If you purchased the common stock of Duke Energy during the Class
Period, you may move the Court no later than September 24, 2012 to
serve as lead plaintiff. Any member of the investor class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions
concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Michael
Burnett, Esq. at Scott+Scott -- mburnett@scott-scott.com -- (800)
404-7770, (860) 537-5537, or visit the Scott+Scott Web site,
http://www.scott-scott.com/for more information. There is no
cost or fee to you.
Scott+Scott is a class action law firm with offices in New York,
Connecticut, Ohio and California.
EBAY INC: Online Vendors File Class Action Over Listing Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that online
vendors complain in a federal class action that eBay takes their
stuff offline after someone clicks the "Buy it Now" button, even
if they do not actually buy it, and then refuses to refund their
unexpired listing fees.
Lead plaintiff Luis Rosado says: "Sellers who list a 'Buy it Now'
item on eBay pay to have the item listed at a particular 'fixed
price' for a specific duration. . . . To initiate the purchase of
a 'Buy it Now' item, the buyer simply clicks the 'Buy it Now'
button within the listing. When the 'Buy it Now' button is
clicked, eBay automatically delists the item from the eBay Web
site. However, eBay does not require the buyer to actually pay
for the item before delisting it. As a result, the item is not
actually sold at the time of the delisting. Consequently, if the
sale does not occur, sellers are deprived of the benefit they paid
for."
Mr. Rosado says, "in some instances, eBay will flag some
transactions as potential fraud and command the seller not to
complete the transaction. . . . Although eBay's user agreement
states that listing fees are nonrefundable, nowhere does eBay
explain that it will automatically delist 'Buy it Now' listings
whenever a prospective buyer clicks the 'Buy it Now' option
regardless of whether or not payment is made. In addition,
nowhere does eBay explain that it will command sellers to not
complete certain transactions at eBay's sole discretion. . . . A
reasonable person would expect that in order to 'Buy it Now' and
cause the item to be delisted, one would actually have to complete
the transaction by purchasing the item.
"eBay also misleads sellers to believe that it will not become
involved in transactions: 'We are not involved in the actual
transaction between buyers and sellers.' However, as stated,
despite this express statement, eBay does in fact regularly
request that sellers not complete transactions if, for example,
eBay suspects fraud. Even in such instances, eBay refuses to
refund listing fees paid in connection with 'Buy it Now' items and
refuses to credit sellers with the remaining time after the item
was delisted."
Mr. Rosado says he tried to sell a car on eBay Motors: "Mr. Rosado
first listed his vehicle for sale on February 8, 2011; he was
charged a listing fee of $36 for 21 days and a picture fee of
$0.25.
"Because Mr. Rosado's vehicle failed to sell, he re-listed it on
March 1, 2011, again paying a $36 listing fee for 21 days.
"On March 8, 2011, the seventh day with fourteen (14) days
remaining, a buyer indicated acceptance of plaintiff's sale of the
vehicle by clicking on the 'Buy it Now' button. As a result, eBay
automatically delisted the vehicle, thus preventing any other
person from buying it.
"However, instead of purchasing the vehicle by depositing funds
into plaintiff's PayPal account, the buyer requested that
plaintiff cash a certified check for more than the purchase price
of the vehicle and send the difference back to the buyer.
"Shortly thereafter, eBay sent an e-mail to plaintiff informing
him that the buyer was proposing a fraudulent transaction. eBay's
e-mail ordered Mr. Rosado not to complete the transaction,
stating, 'Please don't complete the transaction and don't ship the
item. You may have received an e-mail saying the buyer has paid.
However, that's probably a fake message.' . . . Consequently, Mr.
Rosado paid another $36 to list his car for a third time.
"When Mr. Rosado requested a refund on March 22, 2011, eBay agreed
to provide a credit of $4.25, a small fraction of the fees he had
paid."
According to the complaint, eBay, founded in 1995, "is the world's
largest online marketplace . . . in 2011, the total value of goods
sold on eBay was $68.6 billion -- more than $2,100 every second."
Mr. Rosado seeks class certification and an injunction forcing
eBay to change its member policy to include automatic refunds when
a purchase is not completed, and actual and punitive damages for
violations of California's False Advertising Act, the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and breach of contract.
A copy of the Complaint in Rosado v. eBay, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-
04005 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/eBayCA.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Lesley Weaver, Esq.
Sue Kim, Esq.
INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-5637
E-mail: jlurie@initiativelegal.com
lweaver@initiativelegal.com
skim@initiativelegal.com
- and -
D.J. Morgado, Esq.
FELDMAN, FOX & MOGADO, P.A.
100 North Biscayne Blvd.
29th Floor, Suite 2902
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 222-7850
E-mail: dmorgado@ffmlawgroup.com
ENTRUST GROUP: Faces Class Action Over IRA-Based Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that The Entrust
Group and others targeted elderly people in a multimillion-dollar,
IRA-based Ponzi scheme, eight people and two estates say in a
federal class action.
The named plaintiffs say they lost $1.7 million to the scam. They
say the Ponzi was based on self-directed investment retirement
accounts, or SDIRAs.
They sued The Entrust Group and five affiliates, including New
Direction IRA and Vantage Retirement Plans, and Equity Trust Co.
The class claims: "Equity Trust and Entrust have made hundreds of
millions of dollars while claiming to 'administer' SDIRAs that
have resulted in many of their customers losing their entire live
savings (which were invested in SDIRA 'investments' that were
illegal, illusory, nonexistent, or failing)."
The defendants, also referred to as "the custodians," are accused
of "making false and misleading representations that the
investments made by plaintiffs and the class members were safe,
profitable and legitimate when in fact the money invested by
plaintiffs and the class members was being stolen by the
individuals who urged them to invest."
According to the complaint: "Plaintiffs and the class members were
convinced to invest in the SDIRAs by fraud promoters, a term used
by the SEC to describe individuals who devise and orchestrate
Ponzi schemes to defraud innocent investors. The fraud promoters
insisted that plaintiffs and the class members invest in SDIRAs
administered by specific custodians. The use of established
companies like the custodians provided a sense of legitimacy to an
otherwise fraudulent investment scheme and helped entice
inexperienced investors to invest their money into the fraud
promoters' fraudulent investments. The fraud promoters frequently
emphasized the size and experience of the custodians as evidence
of their credibility as investment advisers.
"The fraud promoters invested the money deposited by plaintiffs
and class members in their SDIRAs in 'investments' that were
fraudulent, illusory, or nonexistent. The custodians aided and
abetted the fraud by periodically sending out investment account
statements showing extraordinary investment returns in the SDIRAs
when in fact the fraud promoters were absconding with the victims'
money."
Equity Trust, a South Dakota corporation based in Elyria, Ohio,
describes itself as "'the nation's leading provider of self-
directed IRAs and 401ks, with over 128,000 clients in all 50
states and close to $10 billion dollars of retirement plan assets
under administration,'" according to the complaint.
Entrust Group, a Delaware corporation based in Oakland, Calif.,
"touts itself as the 'world's premier provider of account
administrative services for self-directed IRAs' and 'the only
self-directed IRA administrator that serves you right in your
community.' Entrust Group, until December 2011, had a national
network of affiliated companies that were franchisees of the
Entrust Group," the complaint states.
One named plaintiff, an 85-year-old Californian, claims he lost
his entire $85,000 "investment" to the scam. A 76-year-old
plaintiff from Texas says he lost his entire $159,000. A family
trust from Texas claims they lost $1.3 million.
"The fraud promoters were acutely aware that their affiliation
with and use of the custodians provided a sense of legitimacy to
an otherwise fraudulent investment scheme and enticed
inexperienced investors, who might otherwise be more cautious,
into an investment scam because they believed they were protected
by large, purportedly well-funded companies with trustworthy names
like 'Equity Trust' and 'Entrust,'" the complaint states.
It adds: "The custodians maintained company websites and engaged
in extensive email marketing campaigns that targeted inexperienced
investors with retirement savings accounts, including 401ks and
Roth IRAs, and provided investment advice and information about
SDIRAs.
"To enhance the appearance of legitimacy of their services, the
custodians sponsored webinars about the safety, efficiency and
profitability of investing in IRAs.
"In fact, Equity Trust sponsored webinars about investing in
SDIRAs featuring IRS agents as spokespersons. Such marketing
ploys were intended to lead consumers to believe that the
custodians' services were validated and approved by the IRS."
The class claims the fraud promoters encouraged victims to use
limited liability companies to hold their investments because it
enabled the promoters to hide past bankruptcies and securities
violations.
"The custodians aided, facilitated, and supported the fraud
promoters' control of the victims, so they could maintain a
revenue stream comprised of hundreds or thousands of dollars per
year per account from each victim for essentially doing nothing,"
the complaint states.
"In fact, the custodians knew that the fraud promoters were
defaulting on loans and notes in the SDIRAs owned by plaintiffs
and the class members repeatedly over multiple years but turned a
blind eye. The custodians' failure to accurately report the value
of the SDIRAs of plaintiffs and the class members resulted in
plaintiffs and the class members being unaware that their
investment monies had actually been stolen, although their SDIRAs
appeared to be increasing in value.
"The custodians viewed and treated the fraud promoters as their
partners and clients, not plaintiffs and the class members, which
is why when the money ran out and the Ponzi schemes crumbled, the
custodians refused to provide assistance or help plaintiffs and
class members understand what happened to their investment money."
The complaint lists 44 suspected fraud promoters, 34 people and 10
corporations or LLCs, and claims that many of them "have either
gone into hiding, are awaiting trial or are serving criminal
sentences for their crimes."
The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and
statutory penalties for fraud, conspiracy, and financial elder
abuse. They also seek a court order freezing Entrust and Equity's
assets.
Their lead counsel is L. Timothy Fisher with Bursor & Fisher of
Walnut Creek.
Here are the defendants: The Entrust Group Inc., Entrust
Administration Inc., Entrust New Direction IRA Inc. nka New
Direction IRA Inc., Entrust Arizona LLC nka Vantage Retirement
Plans LLC, and Equity Trust Co.
A copy of the Complaint in Levine, et al. v. The Entrust Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-03959 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/Entrust.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by;
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
David K. Dorenfeld, Esq.
Michael W. Brown, Esq.
SNYDER DORENFELD, LLP
5010 Chesebro Road
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 865-4000
E-mail: davidd@sd4law.com
mwb@sd4law.com
- and -
Cathy J. Lerman, Esq.
CATHY JACKSON LERMAN, PA
7857 W. Sample Rd., Suite 140
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 663-5818
E-mail: clerman@lermanfirm.com
EQUIFAX INC: Appeals From Suit Settlement Order Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al., plaintiffs asserted that Equifax Inc. violated federal and
state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable
procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in
bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an
account following a bankruptcy discharge. On
August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement
Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the
procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy
on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for
injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for damages. On May
7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The
District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the
settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-
notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.
Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011. The deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or
to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011. On July 15,
2011, following another approval hearing, the District Court
approved the settlement. Several objecting plaintiffs
subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which are currently pending.
No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
FBR & CO: Appeal in Thornburg Mortgage Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order dismissing FBR & Co.'s principal U.S.
broker-dealer subsidiary, FBR Capital Markets & Co., from a
consolidated class action lawsuit styled In Re Thornburg Mortgage,
Inc. Securities Litigation, remains pending, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.
In May 2008, the lead plaintiff in a previously filed and
consolidated action filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint that, for the first time, named Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co., Inc. (FBRCM) and eight other underwriters as
defendants. The lawsuit, styled In Re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.
Securities Litigation and pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico, was originally filed in
August 2007 against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. ("TMI"), and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging material
misrepresentations and omissions about, inter alia, the financial
position of TMI. The amended complaint included claims under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters
relating to five separate offerings (May 2007, June 2007,
September 2007 and two offerings in January 2008). The allegations
against FBRCM related only to its role as underwriter or member of
the syndicate that underwrote TMI's total of three offerings in
September 2007 and January 2008 -- each of which occurred after
the filing of the original complaint -- with an aggregate offering
price of approximately $818,000. The plaintiffs sought
restitution, unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of
certain costs and expenses. Although FBRCM is contractually
entitled to be indemnified by TMI in connection with this lawsuit,
TMI filed for bankruptcy on May 1, 2009 and this likely will
decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that FBRCM
receives from TMI. On June 2, 2011 the Court granted FBRCM's
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint as to
FBRCM and then entered final judgment for FBRCM on July 25, 2011.
Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals, challenging the District Court's findings;
briefing on the appeal was expected to be completed by June 2012.
FBR & CO: Securities Suit vs. Unit Still Pending in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co.'s principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary, FBR Capital
Markets & Co., continues to defend itself from a putative class
action lawsuit pending in a federal court in Colorado, according
to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.
FBRCM has been named a defendant in the putative class action
lawsuit MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, L.P. v. United Western
Bancorp, Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado. The complaint, filed in March 2011
against United Western Bancorp, Inc. (the "Bank"), its officers
and directors, underwriters and outside auditors, alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Bank's September 2009
offering. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act against the lead underwriter of the offering
and FBRCM as a member of the underwriting syndicate. Although
FBRCM is contractually entitled to be indemnified by the Bank in
connection with this lawsuit, the Bank filed for bankruptcy on
March 5, 2012 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value
of the indemnity that FBRCM receives from the Bank.
FBR & CO: Unit Continues to Defend Imperial IPO Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co.'s principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary, FBR Capital
Markets & Co., continues to defend itself from several putative
class action lawsuits arising from Imperial Holdings, Inc.'s
initial public offering, according to the Company's May 10, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.
FBRCM has been named a defendant in four putative class action
lawsuits all alleging substantially identical claims against
Imperial Holdings, Inc. ("Imperial"), its officers and directors
and underwriters for material misrepresentations and omissions in
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with Imperial's February 2011 initial public offering. The cases
of Martin J. Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al. and City of
Roseville Employees Retirement System v. Imperial Holdings, et al,
filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for
Palm Beach County, Florida, have been removed to the United States
District Court, Southern District of Florida. Subsequently, two
additional complaints, alleging substantially identical claims,
have been filed in the Southern District of Florida (Sauer v.
Imperial Holdings, et al. and Pondick v. Imperial Holdings, et
al.). The complaints, alleging claims under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act against the lead underwriters of the offering
will likely be consolidated. Imperial has assumed its contractual
obligation to indemnify the underwriters.
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Suit vs. Unit Over Bank Charges Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of First California Financial Group, Inc., continues
to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, according to
the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.
In February 2011, First California Bank was named as a defendant
in a putative class action alleging that the manner in which the
Bank posted charges to its consumer demand deposit accounts
breached an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing and
violates the California Unfair Competition Law. The action also
alleges that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its
consumer demand deposit accounts is unconscionable, constitutes
conversion and unjustly enriches the Bank. The action is pending
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The action seeks to
establish a class consisting of all similarly situated customers
of the Bank in the State of California. The case is in early
stages, with no responsive pleadings or motions having been filed.
No class has been certified in the case. At this state of the
case, the Company has not established an accrual for probable
losses as the probability of a material adverse result cannot be
determined and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposures, if any. The Company intends to defend the
action vigorously.
GARDEN FRESH: Recalls 13,600 Pounds of BBQ Chicken Salads
---------------------------------------------------------
Garden Fresh Foods, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin establishment, is
recalling approximately 13,600 pounds of meat and poultry salad
products. The salads contain diced onions that are the subject of
a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recall by Gill Onions, due to
possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.
The products subject to recall are:
* 8 lb. packages of "Finest Traditions Spiral Pasta and
Chicken Salad" with product code 38576 and lot number
08171201
* 4 lb. packages, 2 per case of "Finest Traditions Chicken
Salad Spread" with product code 38886 and lot number
08201201 or 08151201
* 12 oz. packages, 6 per case of "Finest Traditions Chicken
Salad Spread" with product code 38892 and lot number
08201201, or 08151201
* 8 lb. packages of "Finest Traditions Gemelli Pasta & Chicken
Salad" with product code 38578 and lot number 08151201 or
08161201
* 5 lb. packages of "Garden Fresh All White Meat Chicken Salad
With Cranberries" with product code 5114 and lot number
08201201, 08201202, 08151201, or 08151202
* 5 lb. packages of "Garden Fresh Chicken Salad" with product
code 5113 and lot number 08201201, or 08171201
* 5 lb. packages of "Garden Fresh Premium Chicken Salad" with
product code 5167 and lot number 08151201, or 08121201
* 5 lb. packages, 4 per case, of "Garden Fresh Reduced Fat
Chicken Salad" with product code 5305 and lot number
08141201, or 18171201
* 5 lb. packages of "Garden Fresh Reduced Fat Chicken Salad"
with product code 5306 and lot number 08141201, or 18171201
* 12 oz. packages, 6 per case of "Market Pantry Chicken Salad
With All White Meat Chicken" with product code 24103 and lot
number 08191201, 08191202, 08191203, 08191204, 08191205,
08191206, 08191207, or 08191208
* 5 lb. packages of "Weis Ham Salad" with product code 5212
and lot number 08161201
* 8 oz. packages, 9 per case of "Weis Ham Salad" with product
code 05334 and lot number 08151202
* 12 oz. packages, 6 per case of "Garden Fresh Chicken Salad"
with product code 6164 and lot number 08171201
All the products were produced between July 10 and July 16, 2012.
The packages bear the establishment number "P-17256" or "Est.
17256" inside the USDA mark of inspection and have the lot number
ink jetted on the package. The lot number is indicative of the
product's expiration date. For example, lot number "081912xx"
indicates an expiration date of August 19, 2012. The products
were distributed to retailers and institutions nationwide. When
available, the retail distribution list will be posted on FSIS'
Web site at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp
FSIS was alerted to the problem by Garden Fresh Foods. The
company was informed by a supplier that diced onions used in the
product are subject to a FDA recall. FSIS and the company have
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
this product. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
healthcare provider.
FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks 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 media with questions about the recall should contact
Richard Riebel, Counsel for Garden Fresh Foods, at (414) 278-8500.
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.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Securities Class Action for $26.6 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. has agreed to pay $26.6 million to settle a lawsuit by
investors who claimed they were misled into buying securities
backed by risky loans from the now-defunct subprime mortgage
lender New century Financial Corp.
Investors led by the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi claimed that Goldman's boilerplate disclosures for the
$698 million GSAMP Trust 2006-S2 were false and misleading by
failing to reveal how New Century had ignored its own underwriting
standards and used inflated appraisals.
They also faulted Goldman's due diligence for failing to find the
problems when it bought New Century loans and packaged them into
securities for the 2006 offering. New Century went bankrupt the
following year.
Goldman spokeswoman Tiffany Galvin declined to comment.
The case is one of many in which investors sought to hold banks
responsible for allegedly misleading them about the quality of
mortgage securities that they sold.
Bank of America Corp's Merrill Lynch unit settled one such case
for $315 million, while Wells Fargo & Co settled another for $125
million.
Goldman's settlement calls for the Wall Street bank to pay $21.3
million to investors, or just $20 million if Dutch pension fund
Stichting Pensionenfonds ABP, which has separately sued Goldman,
were to choose not to join the class. Another $5.3 million would
go toward legal fees and other expenses.
The settlement requires approval by U.S. District Judge Harold
Baer in Manhattan.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said that when the lawsuit began in
February 2009, investors had received more than $396 million of
principal and interest on the GSAMP securities, while $177 million
was outstanding and the rest had been written off.
Noting that Goldman was "aggressively challenging damages," which
they said could range from "near zero" to $320 million, the
lawyers called the proposed settlement "extremely beneficial" in
light of this range and the risk of litigation.
Judge Baer had awarded class-action status in February, rejecting
Goldman's arguments that some of the investors were "highly
sophisticated" and might even have had "storm warnings" about New
Century's practices.
Goldman in 2010 agreed to pay $550 million to settle U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission fraud charges over a
collateralized debt obligation it sold, Abacus 2007-AC1 CDO.
The case is Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, No. 09-01110.
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Batesville Casket Suit Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. and a number of
individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. and its
former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary (now wholly-
owned by Hillenbrand, Inc.), and three national funeral home
businesses.
The district court has dismissed the claims and denied class
certification, but in October 2010, the plaintiffs appealed these
decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. If the plaintiffs were to succeed in reversing the
district court's dismissal of the claims, but not the denial of
class certification, then the plaintiffs would be able to pursue
individual damages claims: the alleged overcharges on the
plaintiffs' individual casket purchases, which would be trebled as
a matter of law, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
If the plaintiffs were to (1) succeed in reversing the district
court's dismissal of the claims, (2) succeed in reversing the
district court order denying class certification and certify a
class, and (3) prevail at trial, then the damages awarded to the
plaintiffs, which would be trebled as a matter of law, could have
a significant material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. The plaintiffs
filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages ranging
from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1,460.0
million before trebling on behalf of the purported class of
consumers they seek to represent.
The Company and Hillenbrand, Inc. have entered into a judgment
sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential
liabilities associated with this litigation between the Company
and Hillenbrand, Inc. The Company believes that it has committed
no wrongdoing as alleged by the plaintiffs and that it has
meritorious defenses to class certification and to plaintiffs'
underlying allegations and damage theories.
No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
HSBC BANK: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Cellular Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Mills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.; HSBC Card Services, Inc.; HSBC
Mortgage Services, Inc.; HSBC Auto Finance, Inc.; and HSBC
Consumer Lending (USA), Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-04010 (N.D. Calif.,
July 30, 2012) is brought for injunctive relief, statutory damages
and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from HSBC's
alleged illegal actions.
Mr. Mills alleges that HSBC negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacted him and the Class Members on their cellular telephones
without their prior express consent within the meaning of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. He contends that HSBC has
violated the TCPA by contacting them on their cellular telephones
via an "automatic telephone dialing system," and by using "an
artificial or prerecorded voice," without their prior express
consent.
Mr. Mills is a resident of Oakland, California.
HSBC Bank is a national bank and a wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC
Finance. HSBC Card is the U.S. consumer credit card segment of
HSBC. HSBC offers HSBC home loans and other mortgages to
consumers. HSBC Auto offers auto loans to consumers. HSBC
Consumer offers consumers credit accounts and loans. HSBC markets
itself as "one of the industry's most valuable brands," and "one
of the world's largest banking and financial services
organisations".
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
- and -
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com
esantacana@lchb.com
- and -
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
LIVE NATION: Anti-Competitive Practices MDL Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits around the country alleging anti-competitive
practices in the promotion of concerts, according to the Company's
May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.
The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Malinda
Heerwagen in June 2002 in the United States District Court. The
plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
concert ticket purchasers, alleged that anti-competitive practices
for concert promotion services by the Company nationwide caused
artificially high ticket prices. In August 2003, the District
Court ruled in the Company's favor, denying the plaintiff's class
certification motion. The plaintiff appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals. In January 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed,
and the plaintiff then dismissed her action that same month.
Subsequently, twenty-two putative class actions were filed by
different named plaintiffs in various United States District
Courts throughout the country, making claims substantially similar
to those made in the Heerwagen action, except that the geographic
markets alleged are regional, statewide or more local in nature,
and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals
who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic
markets alleged. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory,
punitive and treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and
costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. The Company has filed
its answers in some of these actions and has denied liability. In
April 2006, granting the Company's motion, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred these actions to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In June 2007, the District
Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and also that month the Court entered an order to
stay all proceedings pending the Court's ruling on class
certification. In October 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion and certified classes in the Chicago, New England, New
York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional
markets. In November 2007, the Court extended its stay of all
proceedings pending further developments in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In February 2008, the
Company filed with the District Court a Motion for Reconsideration
of its October 2007 class certification order. In October 2010,
the District Court denied the Company's Motion for Reconsideration
and lifted the stay of all proceedings. In February 2011, the
Company filed with the District Court a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment Regarding Statute of Limitations. In April 2011, the
District Court granted the Company's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. In November 2011, the Company filed with the District
Court its Motion for Class Decertification, Motion to Exclude
Testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness, and Motions for
Summary Judgment in the actions pertaining to the Colorado and
Southern California regional markets.
In March 2012, the District Court issued an Order (the
"Colorado/Southern California Order") granting the Company's
Motions for Summary Judgment and also granting in part its Motion
to Exclude Testimony. The trial for the action involving the
Southern California regional market that had been scheduled to
commence in April 2012 has been taken off the calendar. On April
26, 2012, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' request for a
stay of proceedings pending their appeal of the Colorado/Southern
California Order, and instead ordered the Company to file, by May
29, 2012, its Motions for Summary Judgment in the other twenty
actions. A hearing was set for July 2, 2012. While the
Colorado/Southern California Order related specifically to the
cases in those two markets, the Company believes that the
decisions and results reflected therein should ultimately be
applied to the remaining twenty actions. As a result, the Company
does not believe that a loss is probable of occurring at this
time; however, if any or all of the remaining cases proceed to
trial and plaintiffs are awarded damages, the amount of any such
award could be substantial. Considerable uncertainty remains
regarding the validity of the claims and damages asserted against
the Company, particularly in light of the decisions reflected in
the Colorado/Southern California Order. As a result, the Company
is currently unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
for this matter. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend all claims in all of the remaining actions.
LIVE NATION: Still Awaits OK of Settlement in Ticketing Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., is still awaiting a final court
approval of a settlement entered in a putative class action
lawsuit challenging its subsidiary's charges to online customer
for shipping fees, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.
In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster
Entertainment LLC's charges to online customers for shipping fees
and alleging that its failure to disclose on its website that the
charges contain a profit component is unlawful. The complaint
asserted a claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, or UCL, and sought restitution or disgorgement of the
difference between (i) the total shipping fees charged by
Ticketmaster in connection with online ticket sales during the
applicable period, and (ii) the amount that Ticketmaster actually
paid to the shipper for delivery of those tickets. In August 2005,
the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, then pleading the
case as a putative class action and adding the claim that
Ticketmaster's website disclosures in respect of its ticket order
processing fees constitute false advertising in violation of
California's False Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended
complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount
of order processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the
applicable period. In April 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
adding new claims that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees
are unconscionable under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged
business practices further violate the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act. Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to
which Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court
overruled Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.
The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in our shipping and order processing fees. The
class would consist of California consumers who purchased tickets
through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to present. The Court
denied certification of a class on the third and fourth causes of
action, which allege that Ticketmaster's shipping and order
processing fees are unconscionably high. In March 2010,
Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the
California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification order.
In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and the
Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs'
Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to
vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to
certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed their Motion to
Decertify Class.
In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding term sheet
that provided for the settlement of the litigation and the
resolution of all claims therein. The settlement was memorialized
in a long-form agreement in April 2011. In June 2011, after a
hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
settlement, the Court declined to approve the settlement reached
by the parties in its then-current form. Litigation continued, and
on September 2, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties reached a
new settlement on September 2, 2011 and subsequently entered into
a long-form agreement. The plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the new settlement on September 27, 2011.
In October 2011, the Court preliminarily approved the new
settlement. Ticketmaster has notified all class members of the
settlement, and a hearing on final approval of the settlement was
scheduled for May 2012. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation,
have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in
connection with the matter, but agreed to the settlement in order
to eliminate the uncertainties and expense of further protracted
litigation.
As of March 31, 2012, the Company has accrued $35.5 million, its
best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement. This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between our estimated redemption rate and the
actual redemption rate we experience will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Witness Testifies in Class Action v. Arpaio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that in the second
week of testimony in a class action civil rights trial, a witness
to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's neighborhood sweeps described them as
"like something out of the Taliban."
However, an expert witness for Sheriff Arpaio testified on July 31
that the lower socioeconomic status of Hispanics in Maricopa
County may lead to more and lengthier traffic stops against them.
Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center of
Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., testified that 23 percent
of Hispanics in Maricopa County live in poverty.
"It's often very difficult for people with low income to maintain
their vehicles," Mr. Camarota said.
He argued that plaintiffs' expert, Ralph Taylor, should have taken
socioeconomic status into account in his finding that people with
Hispanic names were 34 percent to 40 percent more likely to be
checked by a deputy during a saturation patrol than people with
non-Hispanic names.
The data provided to Messrs. Taylor and Camarota was hard to
analyze, Mr. Camarota said, because the Maricopa County Sheriff's
Office doesn't "record race or ethnicity on traffic stops or any
kind of enforcement."
Mr. Camarota said 29 to 30 percent of the time, the data provided
was missing the name of the person stopped.
"We know nothing about those cases," Mr. Camarota said. "We don't
know if they are the same as the ones retained . . . which means
that we don't know what kind of distortions are in the data."
Mr. Camarota said his analysis of the data found that "Hispanics
are being stopped roughly less than their share of the Hispanic
population."
While Mr. Camarota thinks Mr. Taylor should have taken
socioeconomic status into consideration, he said he "doesn't blame
Dr. Taylor" for not including it as a factor. "That doesn't exist
in the CAD (computer-automated dispatch) data; we don't know
anything about the socio-economic status," Mr. Camarota said.
The court also heard testimony from Lydia Guzman, a member of the
board of directors for Somos America, a community-based coalition.
Ms. Guzman, who said she witnessed more than 10 of Mr. Arpaio's
so-called suppression sweeps, testified that it "was very
intimidating, because not only were they wearing ski masks, they
were wearing bulletproof vests over their uniform."
"It kind of looked like something out of the Taliban," Guzman
said.
Ms. Guzman said that during some of the sweeps, Somos America held
community forums to explain to people "what their rights are, how
to act when stopped by police," but few people attended, because
"people were afraid to go to the forums."
Ms. Guzman said she suffered racial profiling at the hands of the
Sheriff's Office. She said a sheriff's officer followed her
during a sweep in the town of Buckeye after he watched her walk
from inside a gas station to her car.
"I was headed eastbound and the deputy was following closer and
closer behind me, and I thought to myself he was going to stop me,
and at that moment I knew I'm racially profiled," Ms. Guzman
testified.
Ms. Guzman said she was not pulled over after she "saw a news van,
a Spanish news van vehicle, and the reporter knew me and waved at
me through the window."
The reporter saw the deputy and made a U-turn to get behind the
patrol car, causing the deputy to change lanes and speed off, Ms.
Guzman testified.
Testimony was scheduled to end Aug. 2, with written briefs to be
filed on Aug. 13 and Aug. 20.
A copy of the Complaint in Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et, Case
No. 07-cv-02513 (D. Ariz.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/MelendresvArpaio.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David J. Bodney, Esq.
Peter S. Kozinets, Esq.
Karen J. Hartman-Tellez, Esq.
Isaac P. Hernandez 025537, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
Collier Center
201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600
Phoenix, AZ 85004-23 82
Telephone: (602) 257-5200
E-mail: dbodney@steptoe.com
pkozinets@steptoe.com
khartman@steptoe.com
ihernandez@steptoe.com
- and -
Robin Goldfaden, Esq.
Monica M. Ramirez, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS'
RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415 343-0770
- and -
Kristina M. Campbell, Esq.
Nancy Ramirez, Esq.
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: 213 629-2512 x136
MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement resolving merger-related class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.
On June 3, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings ("Parent" or "LabCorp") and Mercer Acquisition
Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). The
Merger Agreement provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.
The Company is a party to several legal proceedings relating to
the proposed transaction with LabCorp.
On June 6, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company and its directors in the District Court,
Second Judicial District, Ramsey County, of the State of
Minnesota. The lawsuit is captioned John Siciliano v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc. et al. In the lawsuit, plaintiff alleges
generally that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the transaction by, among other things,
carrying out an unfair process and agreeing to a transaction that
was unfair to the Company's stockholders and that the Company
aided and abetted its directors' breach of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiff purports to bring the lawsuit on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company and seeks equitable relief to enjoin
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and fees and
costs, among other relief. The Company believes the lawsuit is
without merit.
On June 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, its directors, LabCorp and Merger Sub in the
District Court, Second Judicial District, Ramsey County, of the
State of Minnesota. The lawsuit is captioned Carol A. Kiel v.
Richard Braun et al. In the lawsuit, plaintiff alleges generally
that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the transaction by, among other things, agreeing
to a transaction that was unfair to its stockholders, that
provisions of the merger agreement unlawfully preclude its
directors from further soliciting potential buyers and that the
Company, LabCorp and Merger Sub aided and abetted its directors'
breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff purports to bring the
lawsuit on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company and
seeks equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger,
rescission of the merger and/or awarding rescissory damages,
damages and fees and costs, among other relief. The Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit.
On June 21, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, its directors, LabCorp and Merger Sub in the
District Court, Second Judicial District, Ramsey County, of the
State of Minnesota. The lawsuit is captioned Louis Perlman v.
Medtox Scientific, Inc. et al. In the lawsuit, plaintiff alleges
generally that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the transaction by, among other things,
agreeing to a transaction that was unfair to its stockholders,
that provisions of the merger agreement unlawfully preclude its
directors from further soliciting potential buyers and that the
Company, LabCorp and Merger Sub aided and abetted its directors'
breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff purports to bring the
lawsuit on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company and
seeks equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger,
rescission of the merger and/or awarding rescissory damages,
damages and fees and costs, among other relief. The Plaintiff was
a director of the Company from July 1996 through September 1998.
The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit.
On June 26, 2012, each of the plaintiffs in the actions filed a
joint motion in the District Court, Second Judicial District,
Ramsey County, of the State of Minnesota to (i) consolidate the
three foregoing actions and all later-filed actions filed in the
same court arising out of the same facts and circumstances, (ii)
appoint plaintiffs Perlman, Siciliano and Kiel as lead plaintiffs
in the consolidated action and (iii) appoint plaintiffs' counsel
in the initial actions in various capacities as lead counsel,
members of an executive committee and as liaison counsel in the
consolidated action. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.
On July 19, 2012, counsel for the parties in the actions (the
"Minnesota Litigation") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of the
Minnesota Litigation, which includes supplementation of the
Definitive Proxy Statement and the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims against all of the defendants in the Minnesota Litigation.
The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things,
the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement and
final approval of the proposed settlement by the Ramsey County
Court. Counsel for the named plaintiffs in all of these actions
have agreed to stay the actions pending consideration of final
approval of the settlement in the Ramsey County Court. Assuming
such approval, the named plaintiffs in all actions would dismiss
their respective lawsuits with prejudice against all defendants.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Ramsey County Court
will approve the settlement as stipulated by the parties. In such
event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be
terminated.
About MEDTOX(R)
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, is
a provider of high quality specialized laboratory testing services
and on-site/point-of-collection testing (POCT) devices. The
Company also supports customers with complete logistics, data and
program management services. MEDTOX is a leader in providing
esoteric laboratory testing services to hospitals and laboratories
nationwide. This includes both central laboratory and bio-
analytical testing for pharmaceutical clinical trials. MEDTOX
develops and manufactures diagnostic devices for quick and
economical on-site/point-of-collection analysis for drugs-of-abuse
and therapeutic drugs, and provides employment drug screening and
occupational health testing. For more information see
http://www.medtox.com/
About LabCorp(R)
Laboratory Corporation of America(R) Holdings, an S&P 500 company,
is a pioneer in commercializing new diagnostic technologies and
the first in its industry to embrace genomic testing. With annual
revenues of $5.5 billion in 2011, over 31,000 employees worldwide,
and more than 220,000 clients, LabCorp offers more than 4,000
tests ranging from routine blood analyses to reproductive genetics
to companion diagnostics. LabCorp furthers its scientific
expertise and innovative clinical testing technology through its
LabCorp Specialty Testing Group: The Center for Molecular Biology
and Pathology, National Genetics Institute, ViroMed Laboratories,
Inc., The Center for Esoteric Testing, Litholink Corporation,
Integrated Genetics, Integrated Oncology, DIANON Systems, Inc.,
Monogram Biosciences, Inc., Colorado Coagulation, and Endocrine
Sciences. LabCorp conducts clinical trials testing through its
LabCorp Clinical Trials division. LabCorp clients include
physicians, government agencies, managed care organizations,
hospitals, clinical labs, and pharmaceutical companies. For more
information see http://www.labcorp.com/
MIDWEST FOLDING: Recalls 5,300 Stage and Riser Caddies
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with Midwest Folding Products, of Chicago, Illinois, is announcing
a voluntary recall of about 5,300 stage and riser caddies due to
risk of injury and death to consumers. The caddy's latches do not
automatically close to secure the stages and risers when stored.
Unsecured stages and risers can fall off the caddies and onto
consumers.
A 3-year-old girl died in May 2011 in Greenville, South Carolina,
from severe head trauma when a portion of a portable stage fell
out of the caddy and onto her at a church.
This recall involves Midwest Folding Products' caddies used to
store collapsible stages and risers when they are not being used.
The caddies are brown, gray or black metal and measure 44 inches
long by 30 inches wide by 60 inches high. They hold six 96-inch
long or eight 48 to 72-inch long stage or riser platforms.
Yellow caution and instruction labels are located on the caddy's
frame. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12239.html
The recalled caddies were sold by Midwest Folding Products'
dealers to churches, schools, performing arts centers and various
other organizations nationwide and online at
http://www.midwestfolding.com/from January 1989 through March
2012 for about $1,200. Midwest Folding Products is directly
contacting known purchasers of the caddies.
Caddy owners and consumers should immediately stop using the
recalled stage and riser caddies. Caddy owners should contact
Midwest Folding Products to receive a free repair kit with new
brackets that will allow latches to automatically return to the
closed position on the caddies and new white warning and
instruction labels.
For more information, contact Midwest Folding Products at (800)
621-4716 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.midwestfolding.com/.
MOTRICITY INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of Motricity, Inc., between June 18, 2010 and August
9, 2011 or in the Company's initial public offering. The
defendants in the case are Motricity, certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers, including Ryan K.
Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan,
Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge
CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in the
Company's IPO, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets
Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company,
LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleges
violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") by all defendants and
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of
the Company's former and current officers who are named as
defendants. The complaint seeks, inter alia, damages, including
interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission. A second putative
securities class action complaint was filed by Mark Couch in
October 2011 in the same court, also related to alleged violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 7, 2011, the class
actions were consolidated, and lead plaintiffs were appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On
December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which
added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its
allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the
putative class period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011.
On February 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class actions, which the plaintiffs opposed by filing
opposition briefs on April 4, 2012. The plaintiffs were expected
to file an amended complaint by May 11, 2012, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.
NETFLIX: November 14 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Edelson McGuire LLC and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC on
Aug. 1 released a statement regarding Netfix's Class Action
Settlement.
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that
claims Netflix unlawfully kept and disclosed customer information,
including records on the movies and TV shows its customers viewed.
Netflix denies that it has done anything wrong.
Any current or former Netflix subscriber as of July 5, 2012 and
lives in the U.S. or its territories is included in the
Settlement.
The Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Netflix has agreed to change its data retention practices so that
it separates (known as "decoupling") Entertainment Content Viewing
History (that is, movies and TV shows that someone watched) from
identification information for those subscribers who have not been
a Netflix for at least 365 days, with some exceptions. In
addition, Netflix will pay $9 million into a Settlement Fund, from
which it will make donations to Court-approved not-for-profit
organizations, institutions, or programs that educate users,
regulators, and enterprises regarding issues relating to
protection of privacy, identity, and personal information through
user control, pay notice and settlement administration expenses,
attorneys' fees of up to $2.25 million plus up to $25,000 in
expenses, and a total incentive award of $30,000 to the Named
Plaintiffs (a total of six individuals).
Proposals from potential donation recipients will be sought, and,
after consideration, recommendations will be made to the Court. A
list of the proposed donation recipients will be posted on the Web
site. Class Members who do nothing will remain in the Settlement
and their rights will be affected. If they do not want to be
included, they must exclude themselves by November 14, 2012. If
they exclude themselves they keep the right to sue Netflix about
the claims in this lawsuit. Class Members who remain in the
Settlement can object to it by November 14, 2012. The Court will
hold a hearing on December 5, 2012 to consider any objections,
whether to approve the Settlement, award attorneys' fees, and
incentive award. Any Class Member can appear at the hearing, but
they don't have to. They can hire an attorney at their own
expense to appear or speak for them at the hearing.
For more information about the lawsuit, Settlement, and other
relevant information, visit http://www.VideoPrivacyClass.comor
call 1-866-898-5088.
NUFARM: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $43.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Ray Brindal, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that Nufarm
has agreed to pay $43.5 million to settle a class action related
to its disclosure of information material to the company.
The settlement covers claims made by shareholders who bought
shares from September 2009 to August 2010 and comes 14 months
before the scheduled trial date, the company said in a statement.
The class action alleged Nufarm engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct and breached its continuous disclosure obligations in the
period.
The settlement covers the claims, interest, the costs of the
litigation funders and applicants' legal fees and is subject to
court approval, and will be recorded as a material item in the
company's accounts for its fiscal year ending July 31, the company
said.
Chairman Donald McGauchie said that in settling, Nufarm considered
risks and costs associated with a protracted litigation, and
demand on management's time.
"We are pleased to put this matter behind us and have the company
fully focused on continuing to improve the operating performance
of the business," he said.
PERKINS COIE: Judge Orders Arbitration in Ex-Attorney's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that a former
Perkins Coie attorney's class action against the firm for unpaid
business expenses belongs in arbitration, a federal judge ruled,
dismissing the case.
Harold DeGraff sued Perkins Coie in federal court in San Francisco
for himself and a purported class, claiming he was an employee who
was wrongfully made to pay some expenses.
Perkins Coie -- which has offices throughout the United States,
two in China and one in Taiwan -- moved to dismiss the lawsuit, or
to stay it pending arbitration, claiming that Mr. DeGraff joined
its firm as a partner and is therefore subject to an arbitration
clause in the partnership agreement.
Mr. DeGraff opposed the firm's motion on the grounds that the
arbitration agreement is unconscionable, and therefore
unenforceable.
He argued the arbitration clause is unfair because it requires the
arbitration to be conducted in Seattle, to apply Washington law,
to be finished in 90 days and to remain confidential.
But in a ruling he issued on July 30, U.S. District Judge Jeffery
White found that only the confidentiality provision unfairly
benefits Perkins Coie.
"Perkins Coie has institutional knowledge of prior arbitrations.
In contrast, individual litigants, such as plaintiff, are deprived
from obtaining information regarding any prior arbitrations,"
Judge White wrote. "Thus, Perkins Coie is the only party who
would obtain any benefit from this provision without receiving any
negative impact in return."
As for Mr. DeGraff's argument that the Washington law clause
deprives him of his wage claims under California law, Judge White
ruled that the arbitrator must decide which state applies.
Mr. DeGraff also claimed that the agreement does not provide for a
neutral arbitrator because if the parties can't agree on one, it
requires the arbitrator to be a partner in a law firm having a
Seattle office of at least 100 lawyers.
He argued that this arbitrator would be a peer of Perkins Coie,
risking their neutrality.
Judge White found this would not give rise to any bias against
Mr. DeGraff, however, as the arbitrator would also be his peer.
Given these facts Judge White severed the arbitration agreement's
confidentiality provision but enforced the rest of it, and granted
Perkins Coie's motion to dismiss.
A copy of the Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alernative, to Stay Action Pending Arbitration in DeGraff v.
Perkins Coie LLP, Case No. 12-cv-02256 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/Perkins%20Coie.pdf
PET VALU: Ontario Judge Invalidates Class Action Op-Outs
--------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that an
Ontario Superior Court Judge has ruled that the exercise by a
dissenting group of franchisees' right to associate under s. 4(1)
of the Arthur Wishart Act interfered with the rights conferred by
the Class Proceedings Act.
Justice George Strathy's ruling in 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet
Valu Canada Inc. came in the context of a motion to re-open the
opt-out process in the class proceedings. In an extraordinary
decision, the judge invalidated the opt-outs of several class
members in a certified action due to an out-of-bounds campaign led
by a group of franchisees who were opposed to launching the case.
As reported in May, an earlier decision in the Pet Valu case
opened a window for some potential class members to opt-out of the
action. A fresh decision in Pet Valu revisits the opt-out
scenario in light of some more recent developments, particularly
an intense campaign on the part of some franchisees opposed to the
action.
Judge Strathy certified an action in January 2011 under which Pet
Valu franchisees are seeking a share of the volume discounts the
franchisor receives when it buys supplies for the whole chain.
Notices went out in June 2011, and the opt-out period closed on
Sept. 5, 2011. There was a "noticeable spike" in the delivery of
opt-outs after Sept. 5, and Judge Strathy attributes this to a
campaign launched by a group opposed to the class action called
the Concerned Pet Valu Franchisees or CPFV.
Judge Strathy says the campaign was not the result of actions
undertaken by the franchisor, and he recognizes that groups of
franchisees have every right to form groups so they can speak with
one voice. The problem addressed in this decision are the tactics
such a franchisee group might use to campaign against a certified
class action. In this case, he says the CPFV went too far (see
para 55):
"The CPVF telephone campaign and Web site were an unabashed
attempt to destroy the class action. The campaign made no
pretence of giving franchisees an opportunity to make a private,
considered and informed decision. It made no attempt to provide
them with any information concerning the positive aspects of the
class action. While expressing concern about franchisees being
'confused or misinformed,' the CPVF gave them more misinformation
and added to the confusion. In an environment in which
communications to the class by the parties had been strictly
curtailed at the request of the parties and with the court's
approval, the CPVF was able to use its influence and its opinions
to advance what it perceived to be the interests of franchisees,
which it aligned with the interests of the franchisor:
To remedy the situation, the judge invalidated the opt-outs
received after Sept. 5.
Jennifer Dolman, a franchise lawyer with Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
LLP, says this is an extraordinary remedy in highly unusual
circumstances. What's more, the judge is giving those franchisees
who've had their opt-outs invalidated another chance to decide
what to do. She explains in a note:
"As for remedying the unfortunate situation, Justice Strathy
decided that any opt-out after Sept. 5 will be declared invalid.
Further, he held that any opt-out prior to that date will be
presumptively valid, subject to the right of any franchisee who
opted out prior to the date to move to set aside his or her opt-
out. Following the release of the court's decision on the summary
judgment motion, or other final disposition of the action on its
merits, those class members whose opt-outs have been declared
invalid will be given a further opportunity to opt out, on terms
to be fixed at that time."
QBE: To Reduce Force-Placed Insurance Premiums After Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that QBE is to reduce premiums
it charges for a controversial US insurance product forced on home
owners when they fail to organize their own house insurance.
Known as force-placed insurance, the product has been under
investigation by US regulators and the subject of class action
lawsuits targeting QBE.
In order to protect their interests, home loan lenders take out
force-placed insurance and add the premiums, which are often far
higher than commercially quoted rates, to mortgage repayments.
However, the profits reaped have come under scrutiny as more home
owners struggle to keep up with mortgage and insurance payments
after the global financial crisis and the US housing slump.
QBE, a major player in the force-placed market, has submitted new,
lower, rates to New York's Department of Financial Services after
a public inquiry into pricing.
New York's superintendent of financial services, Benjamin Lawsky,
called for new rates last month and has warned insurers he was
concerned that information they had previously supplied to his
department might not be accurate.
Insurers had been working to an earlier deadline of July 6, but
Mr. Lawsky extended this to July 24.
"The loss ratios [the percentage of premiums paid on claims]
insurers have actually experienced for force-placed insurance have
regularly been far below the expected loss ratios insurers filed
with the department," Mr. Lawsky said in a circular to insurers.
"The department's investigation suggests that insurers' rates for
force-placed insurance may be excessive and destructive of
competition."
Over the past two years, insurers have profited from a slump in
the number of natural disasters in the US, which has reduced the
amount they have to pay out in claims.
In New York State, for example, there has not been a major
hurricane for 16 years.
However, with the hurricane season just days away, any reduction
in rates increases the risk of a profit hit if disaster strikes
and large numbers of houses are damaged or destroyed.
Analysts at Merrill Lynch estimate a price cut of between 15 and
30 per cent, demanded by New York authorities, could slash up to
US$240 million (AUD229 million) from QBE's bottom line.
However, they describe this scenario as "unlikely", as it relies
on the price cut in New York flowing through to the rest of the US
market, with analysts at UBS estimating it is more likely to cost
less than US$100 million.
Insurance in the US is regulated by individual states, which have
different views on premium pricing.
A QBE spokeswoman declined to say by how much the company would
reduce its rates.
"The price of the product reflects the poor quality of information
available to the underwriter in relation to each individual risk,"
she said.
QBE continued to "review and refile rates in accordance with local
regulatory requirements", she said.
RITE AID: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Zynga and Rite Aid stiff
workers for overtime, employees say in separate class actions in
Superior Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Fenley, et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation,
Case No. 112CV229127 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is
available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/RiteAid.pdf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Molly A. DeSario, Esq.
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
mdesario@scalaw.com
SAN MIGUEL: Recalls 48 Cases of Comfort Greens Kit With Onions
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Miguel Produce, Inc. of Oxnard, California, is recalling 48
cases of Cut 'N Clean, Comfort (Cooking) Greens Kits, because
products contain onions from Gills Onions, which has the potential
to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Currently, no
illness has been reported related to this recall. Listeria
monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail, or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy persons may
suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headaches, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,
Listeria can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.
This Recall comes as a result of an expanded recall issued by
Gills Onions, Oxnard, California.
This Product was distributed July 13, 2012, through July 17, 2012,
to retail stores in the following states: Arizona, California,
Iowa, and Nevada. This product is sold as a 24oz clamshell
(plastic container with lid) cooking greens kit. Product is
identifiable by the UPC Number 028764000616 this is located on the
back label of the product. They are also identifiable by locating
the run number and best used by dates are found on the lid of the
container, under the product label. The run numbers and best used
by dates are below:
* 20260-07/25/12
* 20260-07/26/12
* 20340-07/27/12
* 20437-07/30/12
* 20546-08/02/12
* 20651-08/03/12
* 20756-08/06/12
* 20756-08/07/12
Consumers who have purchased any of the suspect products are urged
to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or
destroy the product.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1(888)347-
3364, Monday through Friday between the hours 8:00 a.m. - 5:00
p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
SOUTHERN WINE: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge granted preliminary approval of a $3.5 million class action
settlement between an alcoholic beverage distributor and three
former employees who say the company stuck its sales reps with the
tab for business expenses.
Southern Wine & Spirits of America denies its broad-market sales
representatives reimbursement for business expenses incurred from
the use of their personal vehicles, cell phones, home office
equipment and supplies, according to the employees' class action
complaint.
Donald Gagner and Hung Tran initially sued Southern Wine & Spirits
in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, but the case
was removed to federal court.
Mr. Gagner was voluntarily dismissed from the case, after which
Gene Jovich and Leonard Greilich joined Mr. Tran as plaintiffs and
filed a second amended complaint against Southern Wine & Spirits
in federal court on Feb. 22, 2012.
The three former sales representatives say their expenses added up
in the field as they worked at selling wine, beer and spirits to
bars, restaurants and liquor stores.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White granted preliminary approval of
the class action settlement agreement between the parties on
July 27. Judge White granted certification of the settlement
class in his 5-page order and appointed Jovich, Tran and Greilich
as class representatives. In addition, Goldstein Demchak Baller
Borgen & Dardarian and Hammond Law P.C. were appointed class
counsel.
A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval in Jovich, et al. v. Southern Wine & Spirits of America,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04405 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://is.gd/uhWbMf
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Morris J. Baller, Esq.
James Kan, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 763-9800
E-mail: mballer@gdblegal.com
jkan@gdblegal.com
- and -
Julian Hammond, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, PC
1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 601
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
E-mail: hammond.julian@gmail.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over ACTOS Due to Cancer Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rochon Genova LLP issued a class action on behalf
of users of a diabetes drug ACTOS (pioglitazone hydrochloride)
residing in Quebec against the manufacturers and distributors of
ACTOS, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, and its affiliates, and Eli
Lilly.
ACTOS was approved for sale in Canada in August 2000 to control
blood sugar levels in people with Type 2 (non insulin-dependant)
diabetes. A June 2011 study reported to the FDA found a clear
link between pioglitazone and increased bladder cancer risk. As a
result, the FDA in the U.S. issued a warning, now incorporated on
the drug's label, that use of ACTOS for more than one year may be
associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. French and
German drug regulators suspended sales of ACTOS entirely following
the results of similar studies in those countries.
The class action, filed with the Superior Court of Montreal,
alleges, among other things, that the defendants knew or ought to
have known that ACTOS materially increases the risks of bladder
cancer and failed to disclose those risks in a timely manner and
have failed to recall the drug.
The proposed Representative Plaintiff for users of ACTOS is Jimmy
Whyte, a 64-year-old retiree living in Kahnawake, Quebec. Mr.
Whyte was prescribed ACTOS for the treatment of his Type-II
diabetes in November 2008 and was diagnosed with bladder cancer in
April 2012. Mr. Whyte stated: "It would have been important to
know that ACTOS would increase my risks of developing bladder
cancer before I began taking it. I believe this class action is
necessary to determine whether the manufacturer of this drug
should be held responsible for not disclosing such important
information to me."
The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court. The plaintiff and the prospective class members are
represented by the Toronto based law firm of Rochon Genova LLP.
TEXTRON INC: 1st Circuit Affirmed Suit Dismissal in June
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed in June
2012 the decision of the district court dismissing the class
action lawsuit filed by the City of Roseville Employees'
Retirement System, according to Textron Inc.'s July 26, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
On August 13, 2009, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court in Rhode Island
against Textron, its then Chairman and former Chief Executive
Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer. The lawsuit,
filed by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System,
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making material misrepresentations or omissions related to
Cessna and Textron Financial Corporation (TFC). The complaint
sought unspecified compensatory damages. In December 2009, the
Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund was appointed lead
plaintiff in the case. On February 8, 2010, an amended class
action complaint was filed with the Court. The amended complaint
named as additional defendants TFC and three of its present and
former officers. On April 6, 2010, the court entered a
stipulation agreed to by the parties in which plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, certain causes of action
in the amended complaint. On April 9, 2010, all defendants moved
to dismiss the remaining counts of the amended complaint, and on
August 24, 2011, the court granted the motion to dismiss on behalf
of all defendants without leave to amend and entered judgment in
favor of all defendants. On September 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal of the dismissal with the First Circuit Court
of Appeals, and on June 7, 2012, the First Circuit affirmed the
decision of the district court dismissing the lawsuit.
THQ INC: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action in Calif. Over uDraw
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP on July 31 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of THQ Inc. common
stock during the period between May 3, 2011 and February 3, 2012.
What actions may I take at this time? If you purchased shares
during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you
must request appointment by the court no later than August 14,
2012. A "lead plaintiff" works with counsel to direct the
litigation and participates in important decisions, including the
amount of compensation to accept in settlement of the class
action. Members of the putative class may move the court to serve
as lead plaintiffs through counsel of their choice, or may choose
to do nothing and remain absent class members.
If you would like to discuss this action, the lead plaintiff
process, or have any questions concerning this notice, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq., at (888)
300-3362 x302 or via e-mail at jeff@dyerberens.com
What are the allegations in the complaint? The complaint contains
allegations that, during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented
and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that
demand for the company's uDraw(TM) GameTablet(TM) ("uDraw") was
well below internal expectations and the company would have to
take back, or provide price protection, on hundreds of thousands
of uDraw units that it had sold; (b) that the uDraw for the
Microsoft Xbox 360(R) and Sony PlayStation 3(R) was a failure and
not being purchased by owners of those gaming systems; and (c) as
a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis
for their positive statements about the company and its prospects.
Based upon the foregoing, the complaint charges the company and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP.
Contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
Dyer & Berens LLP
303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (888) 300-3362x302
Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com
VALVE: Updates Steam Subscriber Agreement to Avert Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gamasutra reports that Valve has updated the subscriber agreement
for its Steam digital distribution service, introducing a new
dispute process that blocks class action claims from users.
The company noted that individual claims can still be made and
that its number one goal is to resolve customer issues as quickly
as possible, whether that be through the normal support process or
through small claims court.
In the latter case, Valve says it will reimburse costs of the
arbitration for claims under a certain amount, and that this
reimbursement will be provided regardless of the arbitrator's
decision.
However, class action claims can no longer be filed, with the
company noting that, while these claims can be useful for
customers, "in far too many cases, class actions don't provide any
real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and
delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers
who craft and litigate these claims."
It continues, "Class actions like these do not benefit us or our
communities. We think this new dispute resolution process is
faster and better for you and Valve while avoiding unnecessary
costs, and that it will therefore benefit the community as a
whole."
A similar move was made by Sony last year, after numerous class
action lawsuits were brought against the company following the
infamous PlayStation Network breach.
Sony revised the terms of service and user agreement for its
online services, inserting a new section that stated users cannot
enter into a class action lawsuit against Sony unless Sony agrees
to the initiation.
Gamasutra editor-at-large Chris Morris later reasoned that the
outrage that followed was simply making a mountain out of a
molehill, since PSN users will still be able to sue Sony on an
individual basis -- as is the case in this new Steam agreement.
As part of the news, Valve also noted that it has opened a new
office in Luxembourg "to better serve our EU customers and
partners."
ZYNGA INC: Faces Suit for Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Mark H. Destefano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Zynga, Inc., Mark Pincus, David M. Wehner,
John Schappert, Mark Vranesh, Reginald D. Davis, Cadir B. Lee,
William Gordon, Reid Hoffman, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Stanley J.
Meresman, Sunil Paul, Owen Van Natta, Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., and
Allen & Company LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-04007 (N.D. Calif.,
July 30, 2012) is a securities class action on behalf of all
persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Zynga during the period from February 28, 2012, to
July 25, 2012.
Prior to Zynga's July 25, 2012 financial results announcement
reporting substantially lower than expected earnings, the Company
had misrepresented and failed to fully disclose the true extent to
which it had been experiencing a sharp drop-off in users of its
most profitable web games and delays in developing new games to
launch on social media platforms, Mr. Destefano alleges. He notes
that Zynga's July 25 announcement was met with negative response
from analysts, who felt blindsided by Zynga's lower than expected
results and slashed guidance, sparking a flurry of analyst
downgrades.
Mr. Destefano acquired Zynga common stock during the Class Period.
Zynga is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California. Zynga develops, markets, and operates online social
games as live services on the Internet, social networking sites,
and mobile platforms. The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of Zynga. Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan,
Merrill Lynch, Barclays, and Allen served as underwriters in
connection with Zynga's initial public offering and secondary
Offering. They also created and distributed the offerings'
accompanying prospectuses.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
E-mail: rabadou@ktmc.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
Roy Shimon, Esq.
NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 619-5400
Facsimile: (212) 619-3090
E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com
rshimon@nfllp.com
ZYNGA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Zynga dumped
their shares for $229 million at prices inflated by false and
misleading statements, shareholders say in a federal class action.
A copy of the Complaint in DeStefano v. Zynga, Inc., et al., Case
No. 12-cv-04007 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/ZyngaShares.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
E-mail: rabadou@ktmc.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
Roy Shimon, Esq.
NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 619-5400
ZYNGA INC: Sued for Violating Federal Securities Laws
-----------------------------------------------------
Cory Draper, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Zynga, Inc., Mark Pincus, David M. Wehner, John
Schappert, Case No. 3:12-cv-04017 (N.D. Calif., July 31, 2012) is
a securities class action alleging violations of the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Zynga common stock between December 16, 2011, and
July 25, 2012.
The claims asserted in the lawsuit are brought against Zynga and
certain of its current officers and directors seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff
asserts that the lawsuit arises from the fact that the Company's
stock price plummeted 37% closing at $3.17 per share on July 26,
2012, in response to its announcement of a lower-than-expected
financial results a day before.
Cory Draper acquired the common stock of Zynga during the Class
Period.
Zynga is a provider of online networking games. Mr. Pincus is the
Company's chief executive officer and chairman of its Board of
Directors. Mr. Wehner is the chief financial officer of the
Company. Mr. Schappert is the chief operating officer and a
director of the Company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
David C. Walton, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
davew@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
Brett M. Weaver, Esq.
JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
110 West A Street, Suite 750
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com
ZYNGA INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 31 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Zynga Inc. common stock during the period between December 16,
2011 and July 25, 2012, inclusive.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 31, 2012. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/zynga/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Zynga and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Zynga is a developer of online social games accessible to players
worldwide on Facebook and other social networks, mobile platforms
and Zynga.com.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding Zynga's business
and prospects, including in Registration Statements and
Prospectuses for the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and
secondary offering of its Class A common stock. As a result of
defendants' false statements, Zynga stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $14.69
per share on March 2, 2012.
Then on July 25, 2012, the Company issued a press release
announcing second quarter fiscal 2012 financial results below Wall
Street estimates, stating that the Company had experienced a
sequential decline in bookings. The Company also substantially
reduced its fiscal 2012 bookings and earnings per share outlook,
explaining that the prospects for its March 21, 2012 acquisition
of OMGPOP, a creator of social networking games and a particularly
popular game called "Draw Something," had dimmed, and that changes
to Facebook's web platform had hurt its results and outlook. On
July 26, 2012, the Company's stock price plummeted 37% in response
to the July 25, 2012 announcement of the Company's financial
results, closing at $3.17 per share.
According to the complaint, defendants' Class Period
representations were each materially false and misleading when
made as defendants failed to disclose the true facts which were
known or recklessly disregarded by them, including the following:
(a) the December 15, 2011 Registration Statement for the Company's
IPO failed to disclose that under Zynga's agreements with
Facebook, Zynga game cards could only be distributed and redeemed
on Facebook until April 30, 2012, or the true extent of the
current risk of Facebook policy changes on Zynga's bookings
prospects and overall financial condition; (b) Facebook, upon
which the Company was heavily reliant for users and bookings, had
already begun to change its platform and user policies to a degree
that would negatively impact Zynga's current and future bookings
metrics and growth prospects; (c) the March 2012 acquisition of
OMGPOP and "Draw Something" could not support the increased
bookings and financial forecasts issued during the Class Period;
and (d) in light of the facts set forth above, the Company did not
have a reasonable basis for its fiscal 2012 financial forecasts
issued during the Class Period.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Zynga common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $1.5 trillion.
ZYNGA INC: Newman Ferrara Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Newman Ferrara LLP on July 31 disclosed that it filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. 12-cv-124007) on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Zynga, Inc. between February 28,
2012 and July 25, 2012, inclusive and includes those investors who
acquired Zynga stock pursuant to and/or traceable to Zynga's
secondary stock offering on April 3, 2012.
According to the Complaint, Zynga completed a secondary stock
offering on April 3, 2012 which enabled Zynga insiders to sell
over 43 million shares of their Zynga stock at a price of $12.00
per share for proceeds of approximately $516 million. On July 25,
2012, Zynga announced its financial results for the second quarter
of 2012, reporting substantially lower than expected earnings and
lowering its 2012 guidance. Following this announcement, the
Company's common stock plummeted 40% in value down to $2.97 per
share.
The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, against Zynga, certain of its officers and directors,
and those who served as underwriters in connection with Zynga's
secondary stock offering. The Complaint alleges that the
defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions,
including a false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus in connection with Zynga's secondary offering, about
Zynga's business, operations, and growth prospects.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff. If you wish to be appointed lead
plaintiff, you must apply with the Court no later than October 1,
2012. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation on behalf of
the other Class members. The Court will select the lead plaintiff
from among applicants claiming the largest investment losses. You
are not required to have sold your shares to seek damages or to
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Investors who purchased shares of Zynga common stock during the
Class Period and lost more than $100,000 are encouraged to contact
Newman Ferrara attorneys Jeffrey M. Norton -- jnorton@nfllp.com --
or Roy Shimon -- rshimon@nfllp.com -- by e-mail or call (212) 619-
5400 to discuss this action or the lead plaintiff process.
Newman Ferrara -- http://www.nfllp.com-- maintains a multifaceted
practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in
complex commercial and multi-party litigation with an emphasis on
securities, ERISA, shareholder litigation, consumer fraud, and
real estate.
Contact: Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
Roy Shimon, Esq.
1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 619-5400
E-mail: rshimon@nfllp.com
jnorton@nfllp.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *