/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120820.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 20, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 164 Headlines AIG INC: 2nd Cir. Vacates Class Cert. Denial in Securities Suit AMVAC CHEMICAL: Motion to Dismiss DBCP Suit in Delaware Junked ANSCHUTZ CORP: 2nd Circuit Upholds ARS Class Action Dismissal ARCAPITA BANK: Depositors Preparing Class Action ARGENTINA: Appeals Court Remands Bond Class Action ATLAS AIR: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Antitrust Suit BAXTER INT'L: 7th Circuit Denies Bid to Certify Appeal BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Suits Over Plasma Therapies BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Oral Arguments in Tenn. Suit This Month BLOUNT FINE: Recalls 4,100 Lbs. of Meat & Poultry Soup Products BUMBO INT'L: Recalls 4 Million Baby Seats Due to Fall Hazard CANADA: Veterans Concerned Over Military Pension Suit Settlement CANADA: Judge Dismisses Tobacco Farmers' Class Action COMSCORE INC: Still Defends Privacy Class Suit in Illinois DALE T. SMITH: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products DIGNITY HEALTH: California Court Remands Labor Class Action ENSIGN GROUP: Awaits Approval of Staffing Class Suit Settlement FELTEX: Directors Want Identity of Class Action Backer Revealed FIFTH THIRD: Spangenberg Shibley & Liber Files Class Action GENERAL REINSURANCE: Sends Settlement Back to District Court GNC CORP: Sued Over Heart Symbol on CoEnzyme Q-10 Products GOOGLE INC: No Hearing Date Yet on Class Action Appeal HEADWATERS INC: Appeal in "Adtech" Class Suit Still Pending HEADWATERS INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Archstone" Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for False Splenda Essentials Claims JOHNSONVILLE SAUSAGE: Recalls 48,000 Pounds of Turkey Sausage LERNER SAMPSON: Faces Class Action Over Altered Mortgage Papers LAKE COUNTY, IN: Settles Inmates' Class Action for $7.2 Million NANETTE APPEL-BLOOM: Sued by Trustee to Reform Trust Provision PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Jersey RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Faces Class Action Over Speed Camera Tickets SONY MUSIC: Roy Thomas Baker Files Suit Over Digital Royalties SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Court Direction in ERISA-Violations Suit SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Reconsideration Bid Ruling in TRUPs Suit SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Lehman-Related Suits Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Suits Over Overdraft Fees SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Classic Mutual Funds SUNTRUST BANKS: To Seek Dismissal of Captive Reinsurance Suit TACO BELL: Workers File Overtime Class Action UBS FINANCIAL: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action WAL-MART: 3rd. Cir. Affirms Class Decertification in Labor Suit WESTERN HEALTH: May Face Class Action Over Patient Data Breach WYNNPHARM INC: Faces Suit Over Sale of Dona Glucosamine Product ********* AIG INC: 2nd Cir. Vacates Class Cert. Denial in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action case IN RE AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit faced a rare joint appeal from a district court order. After the parties arrived at a settlement agreement, the district court (Deborah A. Batts, J.) denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a settlement class. The district court held that the class could not satisfy the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because the fraud-on-the-market presumption does not apply to the class' securities fraud claims. The AIG Securities Litigation is a consolidated securities fraud action against AIG and other defendants, including General Reinsurance Corporation and its officers Ronald E. Ferguson, Richard Napier, and John Houldsworth. The present appeal arises from the efforts of the Lead Plaintiffs and the Gen Re Defendants to obtain approval of a proposed class settlement. Upon review, the Second Circuit, in an August 13, 2012 decision, held that, under Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997), a securities fraud class' failure to satisfy the fraud-on-the-market presumption primarily threatens class certification by creating "intractable management problems" at trial. Because settlement eliminates the need for trial, a settlement class ordinarily need not demonstrate that the fraud- on-the-market presumption applies to its claims in order to satisfy the predominance requirement. "We therefore vacate the district court's class certification ruling, its grant of judgment on the pleadings, and its grant of partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and remand this case to the district court," the Second Circuit ordered. The appeals case is captioned OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, OHIO POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, RONALD E. FERGUSON, RICHARD NAPIER, JOHN HOULDSWORTH, Defendants-Appellees, Docket No. 10-4401-cv, (2nd Cir.). The appeals court panel is composed of Circuit Judges Gerard E. Lynch, Ralph K. Winter, Jr., and Robert Katzmann. A copy of the Second Circuit's August 13, 2012 decision is available at http://is.gd/58I2Qufrom Leagle.com. Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- of LABATON SUCHAROW LLP in New York represent the Plaintiffs-Appellants. George M. Garvey, Esq. at MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, in Los Angeles, California, represent Defendant-Appellee General Reinsurance Corporation. Frank J. Silvestri, Jr., Esq. of LEVETT ROCKWOOD P.C., in Westport, Connecticut, represents Defendant- Appellee Richard Napier. Douglas Koff, Esq., of PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP, in New York, represent Defendant-Appellee Ronald E. Ferguson. AMVAC CHEMICAL: Motion to Dismiss DBCP Suit in Delaware Junked -------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action captioned JOSE RUFINO CANALES BLANCO, Plaintiff, v. AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; AMVAC, INC.; THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION; DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Defendants, C.A. No. N11C- 07-149 (Del. Superior Ct.), Judge Jerome Herlihy denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and/or motion for judgment on the pleadings. Mr. Blanco filed his lawsuit in the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, in July 2011, asserting personal injury claims over exposure to a now banned toxic pesticide known as dibromochloropropane (DBCP). The Defendants are alleged to have manufactured, sold, distributed, used and placed DBCP into the stream of commerce, thereby exposing banana plantation workers to it. In its August 8, 2012 decision, Judge Herlihy held that the Delaware statute of limitations was tolled even though the original filing was in another jurisdiction and thus, dismissed the Defendants' motions in the Blanco-led lawsuit. "The doctrine of cross-jurisdictional class action tolling applies in Delaware. The consequence in this case is that plaintiff's claim is not dismissed," Judge Herlihy stated. Mr. Blanco was a member of the putative class that filed the original complaint on the DBCP exposure in a Texas state court in August 1993 captioned Jorge Carcamo v. Shell Oil Co., No. 93C-2290 (Brazoria County, Texas) A copy of the Delaware Superior Court's August 8, 2012, decision is available at http://is.gd/bAOffMfrom Leagle.com. John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq. -- jcp@pgslaw.com -- of PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN & SPENCE, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, represents Defendant AMVAC Chemical Corporation. Michael L. Sensor, Esq. -- msensor@perry-sensor.com -- of PERRY & SENSOR, in Wilmington, Delaware; Jonathan S. Massey, Esq. -- jmassey@masseygail.com -- of MASSEY & GAIL LLP, in Washington, D.C.; and Scott M. Hendler, Esq. -- shendler@hendlerlaw.com -- of HENDLERLAW, P.C. represent the Plaintiff. ANSCHUTZ CORP: 2nd Circuit Upholds ARS Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that the Second Circuit on Aug. 14 upheld a New York federal court's dismissal of a putative class action filed by The Anschutz Corp. accusing Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and credit rating agencies, including Moody's Investors Service Inc., of misleading investors in the sale of risky auction rate securities. In reaching its conclusion, a three-judge panel relied heavily on a decision it issued in 2011 in a similar suit, Wilson v. Merrill Lynch. ARCAPITA BANK: Depositors Preparing Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Mandeep Singh at Gulf Daily News reports that 25 claimants -- including private investors and businesses -- are seeking a class action against Bahrain-based Arcapita Bank to get their deposited funds back, which have been frozen since it filed for bankruptcy. The report says the group has already submitted powers of attorney to Bahraini law firm Almoayed Chambers to file a suit in the U.S. "We are expecting several more people, possibly as many as 200, to come forward and issue their POAs," the report quotes Almoayed Chambers chairman Aymen Almoayed as saying. The report, citing court documents, says Arcapita has at least $3,001,070,457 in claims against it based on the publicly available bankruptcy docket. This includes a $255,194,405 claimed by the Central Bank of Bahrain. The report adds the documents showed the potential claims in Bahrain ranged from $1,544 (BD583) to $661,315 (BD249,977). The money deposited is believed to include personal savings and inheritances. About Arcapita Bank Arcapita Bank B.S.C., also known as First Islamic Investment Bank B.S.C., along with affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 12-11076) in Manhattan on March 19, 2012. The Debtors said they do not have the liquidity necessary to repay a US$1.1 billion syndicated unsecured facility when it comes due on March 28, 2012. Falcon Gas Storage Company, Inc., later filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 12-11790) on April 30, 2012. Falcon Gas is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Arcapita that previously owned the natural gas storage business NorTex Gas Storage Company LLC. In early 2010, Alinda Natural Gas Storage I, L.P. (n/k/a Tide Natural Gas Storage I, L.P.), Alinda Natural Gas Storage II, L.P. (n/k/a Tide Natural Gas Storage II, L.P.) acquired the stock of NorTex from Falcon Gas for $515 million. Arcapita guaranteed certain of Falcon Gas' obligations under the NorTex Purchase Agreement. The Debtors tapped Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as bankruptcy counsel, Linklaters LLP as corporate counsel, Towers & Hamlins LLP as international counsel on Bahrain matters, Hatim S Zu'bi & Partners as Bahrain counsel, KPMG LLP as accountants, Rothschild Inc. and financial advisor, and GCG Inc. as notice and claims agent. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc., serves as its financial advisor and investment banker. Founded in 1996, Arcapita is a global manager of Shari'ah- compliant alternative investments and operates as an investment bank. Arcapita is not a domestic bank licensed in the United States. Arcapita is headquartered in Bahrain and is regulated under an Islamic wholesale banking license issued by the Central Bank of Bahrain. The Arcapita Group employs 268 people and has offices in Atlanta, London, Hong Kong and Singapore in addition to its Bahrain headquarters. The Arcapita Group's principal activities include investing on its own account and providing investment opportunities to third-party investors in conformity with Islamic Shari'ah rules and principles. The Arcapita Group has roughly US$7 billion in assets under management. On a consolidated basis, the Arcapita Group owns assets valued at roughly US$3.06 billion and has liabilities of roughly US$2.55 billion. The Debtors owe US$96.7 million under two secured facilities made available by Standard Chartered Bank. Arcapita explored out-of-court restructuring scenarios but was unable to achieve 100% lender consent required to effectuate the terms of an out-of-court restructuring. Subsequent to the Chapter 11 filing, Arcapita Investment Holdings Limited, a wholly owned Debtor subsidiary of Arcapita in the Cayman Islands, issued a summons seeking ancillary relief from the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands with a view to facilitating the Chapter 11 cases. AIHL sought the appointment of Zolfo Cooper as provisional liquidator. ARGENTINA: Appeals Court Remands Bond Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a U.S. appeals court in New York directed that a class-action suit brought against the Republic of Argentina by Hickory Securities Ltd. be sent back to a lower court for further consideration to calculate the amount bondholders can collect. Argentina defaulted on $95 billion in debt in late 2001, the biggest default in history. In 2005, then-President Nestor Kirchner offered holders of defaulted debt 30 cents on the dollar. Holders of about $20 billion in bonds rejected that deal. U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in New York issued eight judgments in January 2009 ordering Argentina to make payments between $95 million and $543 million to the noteholders, including interest that has accumulated since 2001. The awards at the time added up to $2.2 billion. Judge Griesa also granted class- action, or group, status in each action and aggregate classwide relief. Judge Griesa concluded the class consisted of bondholders who purchased Argentine bonds prior to the filing of the suit for each respective bond series and who held such bonds continuously until entry of judgment by the district court. Argentina challenged class certification and aggregate relief, arguing the amounts were improperly based on estimates of the total amount each class might recover, without accounting for bondholders who might not have held bonds continuously during the class period. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York upheld Judge Griesa, ruling in May 2010 that he had properly granted class status to the plaintiffs. The court also reversed Judge Griesa, saying he had erred in basing judgments on estimates of Argentina's liability that resulted in classwide awards that were "likely inflated." The appeals court remanded the case back to Judge Griesa on aggregate-wide class relief and to consider alternative approaches to calculating damages. After the case was initially sent back to Judge Griesa, he ruled in May 2011 that the bond series in three of the eight actions that hadn't yet matured were deemed accelerated. Argentina again challenged the calculation, arguing the lower court had erred in granting aggregate class-wide relief and that he'd failed to account for bonds purchased in the secondary market after the start of the class period. The appeals court ruled on Aug. 14 that Judge Griesa erred in granting aggregate classwide judgments without sufficiently accounting for non-continuous bondholders. The court also directed Judge Griesa to conduct a hearing to consider evidence with respect to the volume of bonds purchased in the secondary market after the start of the class period that weren't tendered in the debt exchange offers or are currently held by opt-out parties or litigants in other proceedings. The circuit also directed Judge Griesa to make findings as to a "reasonably accurate non-speculative estimate" of that volume based on the evidence provided by the parties and account for such volume in any damage award would "roughly reflect" the loss of each class. If no reasonably accurate non-speculative estimate can be made, then Judge Griesa was directed to determine how to proceed with the awarding of damages on an individual basis. The appeals court also rejected Argentina's arguments against class certification as being "without merit" and "disingenuous" noting Argentina defaulted on these bonds and conceded before Judge Griesa that "it had no intention of resuming payments." "As Argentina acknowledges, it ceased servicing this debt in 2001," the panel said on Aug. 14. Carmine Boccuzzi, a lawyer with Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP representing Argentina, and Howard Sirota, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, didn't immediately return calls seeking comment on the ruling. The case is Hickory Securities Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 04- cv-936, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan); the appeals case is 11- cv-3317, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (New York). ATLAS AIR: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated lawsuit over manipulation of fuel surcharges pending in the U.S., according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., is the parent company of its principal operating subsidiary, Atlas Air, Inc., and of Polar Air Cargo LLC -- Old Polar. In 2010, Old Polar entered into a plea agreement with the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") relating to the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate components for air cargo services (the "DOJ Investigation"). Under the terms of the agreement, approved by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Old Polar will pay a fine of $17.4 million, payable in five annual installments, of which the first two payments have been made. The fine relates to an alleged agreement by Old Polar with respect to fuel surcharges on cargo shipped from the United States to Australia during the time period from January 2000 through April 2003. As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust laws. The lawsuit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising prior to 2004. The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs' motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was substantial pre-trial written discovery and document production, and a number of depositions were taken. The case is currently in the class certification phase, with additional depositions occurring. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was filed on October 28, 2011, and the Company filed its response on May 25, 2012. The Company says it is unable to reasonably predict the court's ruling on the motion or the ultimate outcome of the litigation. The Company, Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have also been named as defendants in civil class action lawsuits in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada, that are substantially similar to the class action lawsuits in the United States. The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have indicated they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the Company and Old Polar. The Company says it is unable to reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation in Ontario and Quebec. If the Company or Old Polar were to incur an unfavorable outcome in connection with one or more of these matters, such outcome is not expected to materially affect the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and/or cash flows. BAXTER INT'L: 7th Circuit Denies Bid to Certify Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Baxter International Inc.'s motion to certify an appeal from a ruling denying its motion to dismiss claims in class action lawsuits seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Baxter is a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging that certain of the Company's current and former executive officers and its board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of the Company and issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's plasma-based therapies business, the Company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin product, and other quality issues. Plaintiffs allege this action damaged the Company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess compensation to the board of directors and certain of the Company's current and former executive officers, and other damage to the Company. A consolidated derivative lawsuit is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois and another has been stayed from advancement in the Circuit Court of Lake County. In October 2011, Baxter filed a motion to dismiss the federal actions. In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock. In January 2012, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims related to the class action lawsuits. In April 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to certify an appeal of that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, however, that motion was denied by the appellate court in June 2012. Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare company that applies a unique combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide. The Company is based in Deerfield, Illinois. BAXTER INT'L: Continues to Defend Suits Over Plasma Therapies ------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit relating to plasma-derived therapies, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company is a defendant, along with others, in a number of lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003. The complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief and in some cases demand treble damages. In February 2011, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims and the parties are proceeding with discovery. In January 2012, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss certain federal claims brought by indirect purchasers. Baxter International Inc. is a global, diversified healthcare company that applies a unique combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide. The Company is based in Deerfield, Illinois. BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Oral Arguments in Tenn. Suit This Month ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oral arguments on BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. and other defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in Tennessee are scheduled for this month, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In July 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, management, future business prospects and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock, the safety and efficacy of Augment, its prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval and inadequacies in Augment's clinical trials. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In February 2012, the Company and the other defendants in the case filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in June 2012 and oral arguments are scheduled for August 2012. If the Company is not successful in its defense of the class action litigation, the Company could be forced to make significant payments to, or enter into other settlements with, its stockholders and their lawyers, and such payments or settlement arrangements could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, operating results and financial condition. Additional lawsuits with similar claims may be filed by other parties against the Company and its officers and directors. Even if such claims are not successful, these lawsuits or other future similar actions, or other regulatory inquiries or investigations, may result in substantial costs and have a significant adverse impact on the Company's reputation and divert management's attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, operating results or financial condition. The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims in the class action litigation. The outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and the Company cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of the lawsuits, or an estimate of a meaningful range of possible losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an adverse verdict in the lawsuits. In connection with these claims, as of June 30, 2012, the Company cumulatively recorded $308,899 for legal defense expenses under its applicable insurance policies. BioMimetic Therapeutics (NASDAQ: BMTI) is a biotechnology company specializing in the development and commercialization of clinically proven products to promote the healing of musculoskeletal injuries and diseases, including therapies for orthopedics, sports medicine and spine applications. All Augment branded products are based upon recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (rhPDGF-BB), which is an engineered form of PDGF, one of the body's principal agents to stimulate and direct healing and regeneration. BLOUNT FINE: Recalls 4,100 Lbs. of Meat & Poultry Soup Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Blount Fine Foods, a Fall River, Massachusetts establishment, is recalling approximately 4,100 pounds of meat and poultry soup products that may contain fragments of plastic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following products are subject to recall: * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Chicken and Dumpling Soup," with a "use by" date of August 24, 2012, and "Keep Refrigerated" on the label. * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Italian Wedding Style Soup with Meatballs," with a "use by" date of September 3, 2012, and "Keep Refrigerated" on the label. The cases can be identified by establishment number "EST. 19449A" or "P-19449A" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The soup products were packaged on June 5, 2012, and sent to distribution centers in Pennsylvania and New York. From there, the products were sent to retail establishments in Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In addition to the FSIS regulated products, the firm is also recalling the following products, packaged on June 4, 2012, which are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration: * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Gazpacho Soup," with a "use by" date of September 2, 2012 * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Tomato Basil with Orzo Soup," with a "use by" date of September 3, 2012 * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Caribbean Black Bean Soup," with a "use by" date of September 3, 2012 * 16 oz. cups of "Wegmans Food Markets Lobster Bisque," with a "use by" date of September 3, 2012 The problem was discovered after consumers complained to the firm about finding plastic fragments in various Wegmans brand soup products. The problem likely occurred during the production of the soup containers. FSIS and the Company have not received reports of injury due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an injury 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 news reporters with questions about the recall should contact Timothy Burns, Director of Quality Assurance for Blount Fine Foods, at (800) 274-2526. 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. BUMBO INT'L: Recalls 4 Million Baby Seats Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bumbo International Trust, of South Africa, announced a voluntary recall of about four million Bumbo Baby Seats in the United States of America. In October 2007, one million Bumbo seats were voluntarily recalled to provide additional warnings against use on raised surfaces. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Babies can maneuver out of or fall from the Bumbo seat, posing a risk of serious injuries. CPSC and Bumbo International know of at least 50 incidents after the October 2007 voluntary recall in which babies fell from a Bumbo seat while it was being used on a raised surface. Nineteen of those incidents included reports of skull fractures. CPSC and Bumbo International are aware of an additional 34 post-recall reports of infants who fell out or maneuvered out of a Bumbo seat used on the floor or at an unknown elevation, resulting in injury. Two of these incidents involved reports of skull fractures, while others reported bumps, bruises and other minor injuries. The bottom of the Bumbo seat is round and flat with a diameter of about 15 inches. It is constructed of a single piece of molded foam and comes in various colors. The seat has leg holes and the seat back wraps completely around the child. On the front of the seat in raised lettering is the word "Bumbo" with the image of an elephant on top. The bottom of the seat has the following words: "Manufactured by Bumbo South Africa Material: Polyurethane World Patent No. PCT: ZA/1999/00030." The back of the seat has several warnings and seats manufactured since 2008 have an additional label on the front of the seat warning against use on raised surfaces. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12247.html The recalled products were manufactured in South Africa and sold by Sears, Target, Toys R Us (including Babies R Us), USA Babies, Walmart, and various other toy and children's stores nationwide, and various online sellers, from August 2003 through August 2012 for between $30 and $50. Consumers should immediately stop using the product until they order and install a free repair kit, which includes: a restraint belt with a warning label, installation instructions, safe use instructions and a new warning sticker. The belt should always be used when a child is placed in the seat. Even with the belt, the seat should never be used on any raised surface. Consumers should also immediately stop using Bumbo seat covers that interfere with the installation and use of the belt. A video demonstrating proper installation of the restraint belt and proper use of the Bumbo seat are available at http://www.BumboUSA.com/ Order the free repair kit by visiting http://www.recall.BumboUSA.com/or calling (866) 898-4999 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Thursday and between 8:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Central Time on Friday. Do not return the Bumbo seat to retailers as they will not be able to provide the repair kit. CANADA: Veterans Concerned Over Military Pension Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Murray Brewster, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that there's growing concern among veterans that a big chunk of a planned multi-million settlement over the clawback of military pensions could be gobbled up by legal fees. One member of a class-action lawsuit has written to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, asking that the federal government pay the cost of lawyers over and above any out-of-court compensation that arises from upcoming negotiations. "I hope that you make a separate reasonable payment to lawyers in accordance with the reasonable fees set by precedent in the courts," wrote Louise Gagnon, a retired major. "This payment should not come from the monies contractually and honorably owed us." The federal government announced in June it would not appeal a Federal Court of Canada ruling that rejected clawbacks from the pensions of disabled veterans. Defence Minister Peter MacKay ordered a stop to the practice on July 1. A class-action lawsuit was filed in March 2007 on behalf of Dennis Manuge and 4,500 other disabled veterans whose long-term disability benefits were reduced by the amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability pension they receive. He argued it was unfair and unjust to treat pain and suffering awards as income. The federal government recently appointed Stephen Toope, the president of the University of British Columbia, to lead the discussions with Mr. Manuge's legal team to arrive at a settlement, including retroactive payments. Internal government estimates have suggested that the settlement could run as high as C$600 million, depending upon how many years back the federal compensation plan will go. Ms. Gagnon told Mr. MacKay that settlement scheme was proposed by the government and "it would seem reasonable that you repair this tort out of your own funds." Information from Veterans Affairs Canada suggests legal fees could be included in whatever final agreement is made. "By agreement with the representative plaintiffs, counsel fees may be calculated at 30 per cent of any amounts recovered," said the department's Web site. "If a settlement, judgment, voluntary payment or execution or other benefit is obtained, the lawyers will apply to court for approval of a fee that is consistent with the terms of this agreement, or some lesser amount. The court will decide what amount is fair." In the case of a C$600-million settlement, Ms. Gagnon said lawyers could net up to C$180 million, if the 30 per cent formula is upheld. "This has caused growing alarm with myself and many disabled veterans who could hypothetically be required to pay 30 per cent or more of our (long-term disability) monies for legal costs," she wrote. "Having the class members foot any bill for legal fees would be tantamount to subjecting them to a second clawback." Heather Domereckyj, a spokeswoman for Mr. MacKay, said the federal government has set in motion a process that has checks and balances. "Any settlement of the class action reached between the parties will need the Federal Court's approval," Ms. Domereckyj said in an email. "The government is committed to working towards a positive resolution in this matter. It would be inappropriate to comment further." Mr. Manuge was not immediately available for comment. Even though the clawbacks ended in July, there are still some veterans who still face the deduction. Ex-soldiers 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. Those veterans with the most grievous injuries are entitled to receive the maximum benefit, particularly since many can't work, advocates have said. CANADA: Judge Dismisses Tobacco Farmers' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Tom Blackwell, writing for National Post, reports that an unusual, C$500-million class-action lawsuit by tobacco farmers that accuses the federal and Ontario governments of turning a blind eye to contraband tobacco, seriously undermining the legal cigarette industry in the process, has hit a brick wall. The farmers allege tax authorities chose to let the trade in unlicensed, untaxed tobacco flourish to avoid angering First Nations' communities where the cigarettes are made and sold. It is a charge often levelled by anti-smoking and industry critics, too. But Justice Duncan Grace has ruled even if the government did act to appease First Nations, it was a decision made for economic, social and political reasons, and cannot be challenged legally. If governments had a duty to private individuals like the farmers in such cases, as opposed to the public, they would be vulnerable to unlimited lawsuits, said the Ontario Superior Court judge. "Many industries are regulated. Most products are taxed," he wrote in his decision, released this month. "If a private law duty of care exists in this case, where does it end? It seems to me that the government [would be] exposed to the risk of suit by anyone disadvantaged by any decision made under a regulatory or taxing statute." The judge accepted an application by the provincial and federal governments to strike down the statement of claim that launched the class-action suit. The tobacco producers have yet to decide whether to appeal the ruling, said John McDonald, one of their lawyers. But he stressed the lack of enforcement action by federal and provincial officials has had dramatic effects, pointing to a 32- kilometre stretch of highway near the Six Nations' community in southern Ontario that is lined with makeshift stores selling unlicensed tobacco. "There are so many, you can't even do an accurate count as you drive through," he said. "If [governments] are doing something, it's just sort of surface painting." Ronald Slaght, who represented the Department of National Revenue in the case, argued governments cannot be expected to universally enforce every aspect of every law. "There aren't unlimited resources to do everything in government, so there has to be a balance," he said. "There is no policy of abandonment of [tobacco-tax] enforcement, but it is a difficult issue." The suit alleged Ottawa and Ontario allowed aboriginal tobacco producers and retailers to make and sell cigarettes without government licensing or paying excise taxes. Many cigarettes are smuggled in from factories on the U.S. side of the Akwesasne reserve near Cornwall, Ont., but police say plants are also operating on at least three reserves in Canada. Evidence suggests some of the raw tobacco they use is supplied illicitly by accredited Ontario tobacco farmers. Contraband tobacco products have flooded the Canadian market, accounting for as many as 32% of cigarettes smoked nationally in 2008, though estimates for recent years have dropped somewhat, says the group Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada. The federal government and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have tried to combat the contraband problem, primarily through police action against smugglers, but critics say more could be done. That includes cracking down on the sale of raw tobacco, papers, filters and other ingredients to the contraband producers, and trying to close the unlicensed factories. First Nations' tobacco entrepreneurs and some leaders in their communities contend they have a sovereign right to produce and sell cigarettes outside the tax system. Any attempt to raid the facilities would be met with anger and stiff opposition, they say. Regardless, the two Ontario tobacco farms named in the suit allege the declining market for legally produced tobacco has had a devastating effect. They say they sold less than 20,000 pounds of tobacco in 2008, down from 117,000 lbs. in 2001. COMSCORE INC: Still Defends Privacy Class Suit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- On August 23, 2011, comScore, Inc. received notice that Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other things, violations by the Company of the Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act as well as unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including statutory damages per violation and punitive damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the plaintiffs. Based on review of these claims, the Company believes that they are without merit, and it intends to vigorously protect and defend itself. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. DALE T. SMITH: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service disclosed that certain stores in Utah received beef products that have been recalled by Dale T. Smith and Sons Meat Packing. The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all retail locations that have received the recalled product or may include retail locations that did not actually receive the recalled product. Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that consumers use the product-specific identification information available at http://is.gd/jXmO3W,in addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers' possession to see if they have been recalled. Retailer Name City and State ------------- -------------- Dale T. Smith's Retail Store Draper, Utah Carnecia Ogden, Utah Don's Meats Sunset, Utah Don's Meats Syracuse, Utah DIGNITY HEALTH: California Court Remands Labor Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Erin Coe, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal court on Aug. 13 remanded a proposed class action alleging hospital network Dignity Health had failed to provide nurses meal and rest breaks, finding the plaintiffs' claims were based on state-law rights and wouldn't require any interpretation of their collective bargaining agreement. U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson denied Dignity Health's summary judgment motion and rejected its argument that the plaintiffs' state law claims for unpaid wages were preempted under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. ENSIGN GROUP: Awaits Approval of Staffing Class Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Ensign Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a staffing class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In July 2012, Ensign reached a tentative settlement with class counsel in a staffing class-action claim filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Costs and fees associated with the settlement were $5,000,000, of which $2,596,000 of this amount was recorded in the quarter ended June 30, 2012, with the balance having been expensed in prior periods. The amount of the one-time settlement charge was excluded from non-GAAP results. Management has affirmed that, assuming that the settlement is executed and approved by the court, the settlement will not have a material ongoing adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations. FELTEX: Directors Want Identity of Class Action Backer Revealed --------------------------------------------------------------- The New Zealand Herald reports that directors of Feltex, which collapsed in 2006, are seeking the identity of the funder behind a class action lawsuit being taken against them. The directors for failed carpet maker Feltex want to know the identity of a British backer for the looming class action, and are seeking to oust Tony Gavigan, the driving force behind the proceedings, the Court of Appeal heard on Aug. 15. The directors of the company at the time of its 2004 float don't have enough assurance their costs will be covered if they successfully defend the class suit being brought by Feltex shareholder Eric Houghton on behalf of some 3,000 other investors, their counsel David Cooper told Justices Mark O'Regan, Anthony Randerson and Rhys Harrison in Wellington. The directors at the time were Tim Saunders, Sam Magill, John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter David and Joan Withers. Mr. Cooper's concern is that UK-based Harbour Litigation Funding isn't directly involved, rather an unnamed associate is funding the action with an undisclosed level of insurance cover for costs, via Mr. Gavigan's wholly-controlled New Zealand entity, Joint Action Funding Ltd. The directors are seeking details of the funding arrangement, including the identity of the actual British entity as well as the level of insurance cover, Mr. Cooper said. Counsel for Houghton, Austin Forbes, said Harbour didn't disclose the terms of its commercial arrangements, but said the level of insurance was sufficient to cover costs. There were also tax issues for the UK entity directly funding the action. Justice Harrison tried to convince counsel to come to an agreement over the disclosing certain terms of the funding arrangements, saying this case didn't need any further necessary delays. Mr. Cooper also questioned the suitability of Mr. Gavigan as an appropriate court-approved funder, saying he had breached court orders and made misleading statements that their acquittal in a 2010 action taken by the Registrar of Companies for alleged breaches of the Financial Reporting Act was based on a technical argument. "If a responsible funder is put in the position of funding with control in the same way (as in Australia), there's nothing for us to complain about," Mr. Cooper told the court. "The complaints we have made are with particular entities." The other parties to the class suit include broking firms Credit Suisse, First NZ Capital, and Forsyth Barr, who sold and promoted the offer. Counsel for Credit Suisse, Adrian Olmey, told the court the procedural process was flawed, with one proceeding filed with all 3,000 participating shareholders included as joint plaintiffs rather than a representative claim. Because of that process, many of those joining shareholders would not be able to participate because it would have exceeded the statutory limitation of six years to file a claim. When it finally gets to court, the Feltex action will be divided into two stages. The first will hear Houghton's entire case, with the second using the first for binding rulings on common claims. The hearing is set down for two days, and is proceeding. Feltex collapsed in 2006, owing creditors between NZD30 million and NZD40 million, and destroying some NZD254 million in shareholder value. FIFTH THIRD: Spangenberg Shibley & Liber Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Ohio (Case # 1:12-cv-2007, Northern District of Ohio, US District Court) alleges that "payday" loans offered by Cincinnati, Ohio- based Fifth Third Bank were usurious, provided false interest rate disclosures and violated Ohio law. According to court documents, plaintiffs William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney brought the lawsuit on behalf of a class of all individuals who received "Early Access" loans from Fifth Third and repaid those loans within 30 days. The individual plaintiffs and the class are represented by Cleveland, Ohio-based Spangenberg Shibley & Liber, Tycko & Zavareei in Washington, DC, and Barnow and Associates of Chicago, IL. All three firms have previously been involved in consumer class action lawsuits against banks, including the successful prosecution and settlement of claims related to fraudulent overdraft fees charged by banks. In recent years, Ohio has passed law protecting consumers from predatory payday loans. "Because the problem of payday lending was primarily associated with small storefront operations in economically disadvantaged areas, the law was not made applicable to large state-chartered banks like Fifth Third," said Daniel Frech, an attorney for the Plaintiffs. "Fifth Third, however, seized upon the fact the new laws put most small payday lenders out of business and slid in to fill the void." Many federal bank accrediting and auditing entities, including the FDIC, who is "deeply concerned" about the practice, have spoken out against consumer banks engaging in payday lending. In fact, The Officer of the Comptroller of Currency, who regulated Fifth Third at the time, ordered banks to "stay the hell away" from payday loans in 2003. Fifth Third discloses an Annualized Percentage Rate (APR) of 120 percent, based on the loan's maximum possible duration of 30 days. However, unlike short term loans from traditional payday lenders, the amount owed to the bank is automatically deducted from a customer's account once a direct deposit sufficient to cover the amount owed occurs. As such, a vast majority of the loans are paid back far more quickly. This resulted in Klopfenstein paying an APR over 1000 percent on several occasions and McKinney paying, in one instance, an APR over 3000 percent. The plaintiff's complaint alleges that these excessive interest rates are usurious and breached the loan terms the consumers agreed to. Ohio law restricts the maximum interest rate that banks can charge on loans to 25 percent. Fifth Third claims that all interest paid on Early Access loans is actually a "transaction fee," which the bank believes allows it to comply with Ohio law while charging APRs, in some cases, 100 times higher than that allowed by the statute. The complaint alleges that the "fees" charged by Fifth Third are, in fact, finance charges and that the interest rate the bank charges is therefore far in excess of the statutory maximum rate of 25 percent. The complaint asks that all excessive interest charges be disgorged from Fifth Third and paid back to the customers. About Spangenberg Shibley & Liber Spangenberg Shibley & Liber handles a broad range of business litigation, dangerous drug, personal injury, medical malpractice, nursing home and elder abuse and civil rights cases. The firm also litigates a variety of property damage and insurance coverage cases. GENERAL REINSURANCE: Sends Settlement Back to District Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Chad Hemenway, writing for PropertyCasualty360.com, reports that a federal court of appeals is sending back to district court a $72 million settlement General Reinsurance Corp. had with investors to resolve a securities class-action lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed District Court Judge Deborah Batts' 2010 refusal to certify the settlement class because it could not satisfy a certain "predominance requirement" used to test common versus individual issues in order to determine if the class is cohesive, and whether a class-action is the best way to proceed with a dispute. In this case, each plaintiff would need to prove that each was aware of and relied on AIG's false financial statements. But a trio of appeals judges says a failure to satisfy this requirement only presents problems at trial. In this case, the "settlement eliminates the need for trial" so the class does not need to satisfy the requirement. "With a settlement class, the manageability concerns posed by numerous individual questions of reliance disappear," says the ruling. The case was originally filed in 2007, led by several Ohio public pension funds alleging a sham $500 million finite reinsurance transaction between Berkshire Hathaway's Gen Re and American International Group Inc. (AIG) in the early 2000s was intended to inflate AIG's loss reserves. The judges say their reversal "should not be taken as an endorsement of the fairness of the proposed settlement -- and issue we leave to the district court to address" if it certifies the class. Judge Batts last October also preliminarily approved a separate $725 million settlement agreement to resolve a securities class- action lawsuit between AIG and Ohio and Florida public pension plan funds. GNC CORP: Sued Over Heart Symbol on CoEnzyme Q-10 Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Harold M. Hoffman, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. GNC Corporation, Case No. L-005974-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., August 7, 2012) alleges that in connection with the marketing, advertisement and sale of CoEnzyme Q-10, GNC affirmatively labeled each bottle of its product with a prominent red heart. According to the guidelines, rules and regulations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, labeling a product with a heart symbol implies a disease treatment or prevention claim, Mr. Hoffman asserts. He contends that the FDA does not permit a disease treatment or prevention claim, or heart symbol, of any sort, for CoEnzyme Q-10 supplements. Hence, he insists that the affirmative promises and representations made by the Defendant through the prominent placement of the heart symbol on product bottles that its product is suitable for disease treatment and prevention, is false and violative of FDA rules and guidelines. Mr. Hoffman is a resident of Bergen, New Jersey. GNC is a Delaware corporation based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GNC is a nationwide retailer of vitamins and nutritional supplements. The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit: Harold H. Hoffman, Esq. 240 Grand Avenue Englewood, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 569-0086 E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net GOOGLE INC: No Hearing Date Yet on Class Action Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Google has won the right to appeal the granting of class status to thousands of authors suing the search engine company over its ambitious plan to create the world's largest digital books library. In a brief order, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York granted Google permission to challenge a May 31 decision by U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin letting authors sue as a group rather than individually. Billions of dollars are at stake in the seven-year-old lawsuit. Google has already scanned more than 20 million books, and the Authors Guild, a group representing authors, has said Google should pay $750 for each book copied. It is unclear when the 2nd Circuit will hear the appeal. Decertifying the class could make it harder for authors to win a large award against Google, either at trial or in a settlement. Judge Chin had said it would be unjust to force Authors Guild members to sue individually, likely resulting in disparate results and much higher legal costs, "given the sweeping and undiscriminating nature of Google's unauthorized copying." But Google countered in a court filing that many class members, perhaps even a majority, benefited economically, and that case-by- case determinations were needed to show whether it was making "fair use" of the plaintiffs' works. Citing a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision favoring Wal-Mart that made it harder to pursue class-action cases, Google said that even if "droves" of authors raised common issues, there was no "common answer" to address them. "Plaintiffs seek to shut down a significant part of Google Books and to recover potentially billions of dollars," Google said. "With so much at stake, Google should not be forced to litigate without the full benefit of its principal defense." Michael Boni, a lawyer for the Authors Guild, was not immediately available for comment. That group has argued that there is enough in common among the claims to let the class-action to go ahead and defeat the fair use defense. Google began creating the library after the Mountain View-based company agreed in 2004 with several major research libraries to digitize current and out-of-print works. Libraries whose works have been scanned include Harvard University, Oxford University, Stanford University, the University of California, the University of Michigan and the New York Public Library. In March 2011, Judge Chin rejected a $125 million settlement of the case, saying it gave Google a "de facto monopoly" to copy books en masse without permission. Among the individual plaintiffs in the case is former New York Yankees baseball pitcher Jim Bouton, the author of "Ball Four." Groups of photographers and graphic artists are also suing Google over its digitization of the works. Judge Chin began handling the case as a trial judge and kept jurisdiction after he was elevated to the 2nd Circuit. The Aug. 14 order was issued by a two-judge panel of the appeals court. HEADWATERS INC: Appeal in "Adtech" Class Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- In 1998, Headwaters Incorporated entered into a technology purchase agreement with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc. The transaction transferred certain patent and royalty rights to Headwaters related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by Davidson. In 2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee filed by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among other things, fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion, patent infringement and interference with contract arising out of the 1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between Davidson and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other. All claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial proceedings except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust. The District Court certified a class comprised of substantially all purported stockholders of Adtech, Inc. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of $43.0 million plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages. In June 2009, a jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of $8.7 million for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion of the class members. In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict after a trial for the remaining 46 members of the class in the amount of $7.3 million. In April 2011, the trial court entered an order for a constructive trust in the amount of approximately $16.0 million (the same amount as the sum of the previous jury verdicts), denied all other outstanding motions, and entered judgment against Headwaters in the total approximate amount of $16.0 million, in accordance with the verdicts and order on constructive trust. The $16.0 million is fully accrued. The court denied all post-judgment motions by the parties. Headwaters filed a supersedeas bond and a notice of appeal from the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Plaintiffs also filed notice of an appeal. The Federal Circuit has transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the basis of jurisdiction. Because the resolution of the litigation is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion as to the ultimate amount, if any, of Headwaters' liability. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. HEADWATERS INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Archstone" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York. Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began to rot and grow mold. In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and began repairing the 21 apartment buildings. Also in 2008, Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of the State of New York against the prime contractor and its performance bond surety, the designer, and Headwaters Incorporated's subsidiary, Eldorado Stone, LLC, which supplied architectural stone that was installed by others during construction. The prime contractor then sued over a dozen subcontractors who in turn sued others. Archstone claims as damages approximately $36.0 million in repair costs, $15.0 million in lost lease payments, $7.0 million paid to tenants who sued Archstone, and $7.0 million for class action defense fees, plus prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. Eldorado Stone answered denying liability and tendered the matter to its insurers who are paying for the defense of the case. The court has dismissed all claims against Eldorado Stone, except the claim of negligence, and the parties are pursuing an interlocutory appeal of the order of dismissal. Meanwhile, discovery is underway. Because the resolution of the action is uncertain, legal counsel and management cannot express an opinion concerning the likely outcome of this matter, the liability of Eldorado Stone, if any, or the insurers' obligation to indemnify Eldorado Stone against loss, if any. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for False Splenda Essentials Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Bronson, Michael Fishman, and Alvin Kupperman on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, Case No. 4:12-cv-04184 (N.D. Calif., August 9, 2012) is a proposed class action on behalf of California residents seeking redress for the Defendants' deceptive practices in misrepresenting the health benefits of varieties of the Defendants' fortified no-calorie sweeteners -- Splenda Essentials -- in violation of California's consumer protection laws. The Defendants command a premium price for Splenda Essentials by distinguishing it from regular Splenda and other no-calorie sugar substitutes, and by "marketing" it as a sweetener that "gives you a small boost of healthy nutrients," the Plaintiffs allege. They argue that the Defendants' marketing campaign for Splenda Essentials deceptively promotes the three varieties as healthful, no-calorie sweeteners that are fortified with antioxidants, B vitamins, or fiber. Messrs. Fishman and Kupperman are residents of Palm Springs, California. Ms. Bronson is a resident of San Rafael, California. They purchased Splenda Essentials with B vitamins, Splenda Essentials with Antioxidants, and Splenda Essentials with Fiber during the Class Period. They assert that they relied on written misrepresentations present on all varieties of the Splenda Essentials packaging. Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational consumer packaged goods manufacturer. McNeil Nutritionals is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and sells the sucralose branded sweeteners Splenda and Splenda Essentials. McNeil Nutritionals is headquartered in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W. Mills, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Corey B. Bennett, Esq. THE MILLS LAW FIRM 880 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite 2 San Rafael, CA 94903 Telephone: (415) 455-1326 Facsimile: (415) 455-1327 E-mail: rwm@millslawfirm.com josh@millslawfirm.com corey@millslawfirm.com - and - Stephen Gardner (pending pro hac vice) Amanda Howell (pending pro hac vice) CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 5646 Milton Street, Suite 211 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 827-2774 Facsimile: (214) 827-2787 E-mail: sgardner@cspinet.org ahowell@cspinet.org JOHNSONVILLE SAUSAGE: Recalls 48,000 Pounds of Turkey Sausage ------------------------------------------------------------- Johnsonville Sausage, LLC, a Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin establishment, is recalling approximately 48,000 pounds of "Turkey Sausage with Cheddar Cheese" products because they may contain pieces of gloves, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following product is subject to recall: * 13.5-oz. vacuum packages of "Johnsonville Turkey Sausage with Cheddar Cheese" The packages can be identified by establishment number "EST. P- 34224" inside the USDA mark of inspection and the best by date "08/20/2012 2." The "Turkey Sausage with Cheddar Cheese" was produced on May 22, 2012, and was distributed to retail establishments nationwide. A picture of the label of the recalled products is available at http://is.gd/wSjVwY The Company alerted FSIS of the problem after receiving two consumer complaints. FSIS and the Company have not received reports of injury due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an injury 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 with questions about the recall should contact Johnsonville Consumer Relations at 1-800-270-4662. Media with questions about the recall should contact Christie Moore, Communications Manager, at (920) 453-7422. 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. LERNER SAMPSON: Faces Class Action Over Altered Mortgage Papers --------------------------------------------------------------- Martha Neil, writing for ABA Journal, reports that six law firms are coordinating to represent seven Ohio homeowners in what they say could be a class action benefiting thousands of individuals harmed by falsified and fraudulent paperwork filed in foreclosure cases by mortgage servicers and those working for them. The Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court suit, which names three law firms among the eight defendants, seeks class action status, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports. The plaintiffs are seeking damages including lost down payments, lost equity and compensation for the damage to their credit ratings. The suit alleges that the defendants prepared, executed and notarized fraudulent documents included in court filings to make it appear that the requirements for filing a foreclosure action were met, the newspaper reports. It also alleges that the defendants violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, which sets standards for documentation required to transfer a mortgage. The article doesn't include any comment from any of the defendants. The defendant law firms, all of which are based in Ohio, are Lerner Sampson & Rothfuss; Manley Deas Kochalski; and Reimer Arnovitz Chernek & Jeffrey. None of the defendant law firms could be reached for comment by the ABA Journal late in the day on Aug. 14. LAKE COUNTY, IN: Settles Inmates' Class Action for $7.2 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kwiatkowski, writing for nwitimes, reports that Lake County has agreed to pay $7.2 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by inmates who complained about jail conditions, court records show. U.S. District Court Judge Philip Simon on Aug. 14 gave preliminary approval to the settlement agreement and will hold a final approval hearing at 9:30 a.m. Dec. 14. Inmates who were confined for 24 hours or longer in a holding cell at the Lake County Jail between May 13, 2006, and Feb. 1 will be eligible to submit a claim for payment from the settlement, according to the agreement. Thousands of people are believed to be eligible. Attorney Samantha Liskow said letters will be sent to people who have been identified as meeting that criteria. The claim information also will be published in various newspapers. "We are very happy with the settlement because many individuals will be compensated, and also because we are hopeful that the jail is moving toward improved conditions for the detainees," Ms. Liskow said. She works for Loevy & Loevy, a Chicago-based civil rights firm that is representing all the inmates involved in the class-action suit. The amount each person will be compensated depends on the number of inmates and the length of time he or she spent in a jail holding cell. Gerald Bishop, who represented county officials in the lawsuit, could not be reached Tuesday for comment. Richard Flood, Roberto Cantu, Terrance Smith, Patrick Flood, Jacqueline Drankus, Edward Walker and David Kurcz sued the county, former Lake County Sheriff Roy Dominguez, former jail Warden Caren Jones, former Warden Benny Freeman and unknown jail supervisors in 2008, arguing the jail conditions were "inhumane." They claimed inmates were held for weeks or months in overcrowded holding cells after their arrival and had to sleep directly on concrete. They also claimed medical care was "nearly nonexistent" and the floor of the jail had human waste on it, according to the initial complaint. NANETTE APPEL-BLOOM: Sued by Trustee to Reform Trust Provision -------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald S. Kaufman and Gerald S. Kaufman Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Nanette Appel-Bloom, Anthony V. Barbiero, and Alan S. Jacobs on behalf of themselves and a Class Similarly Situated, Case No. 2012-CH-30537 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August 9, 2012) is a lawsuit seeking reformation of a provision of a trust agreement entered into in 1959 for a trust administered in Illinois, and for permission for the trustee-plaintiffs to deviate from the provision. The relief sought in the lawsuit is necessary because without it, the provision in question will result in the Trust beneficiaries losing the Trust property, which is a large office and commercial building of substantial value located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Plaintiffs contend. The Trust provision to be reformed and deviated from denies the Trustee power to mortgage or sell the Trust Property, except upon written approval of every beneficiary. However, the Plaintiffs assert, it is impossible to obtain the written approval of every beneficiary because there are more than 600 of them, who reside in Illinois and numerous other states and several foreign countries. Mr. Kaufman became the successor and assignee of the original trustees nearly 30 years ago and has served as Trustee ever since. Kaufman Corp. has been an assignee and served with Mr. Kaufman since 1999. He is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. Kaufman Corp. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago. The Defendants are beneficiaries of the Trust. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger B. Harris Robin L. Wolkoff FOX, HEFTER, SWIBEL & CARROLL, LLP 200 West Madison Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 224-1200 E-mail: rharris@fhslc.com rwolkoff@fhslc.com PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Par Pharmaceutical Cos. are selling the company too cheaply to TPG Capital, for $1.8 billion or $50 a share, shareholders claim in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Duvall v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 15770 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Aug. 14, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/15/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Stein, Esq. John T. Whipple, Esq. Sean Mack, Esq. PASHMAN STEIN, P.C. Court Plaza South 21 Main Street, Suite 100 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 488-8200 E-mail: mstein@pashmanstein.com jwhipple@pashmanstein.com smack@pashmanstein.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com cbarrett@rgrdlaw.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. David T. Wissbroecker Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com - and - Hamilton Lindley, Esq. GOLDFARB LLP 2501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1801 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214/583-2233 E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbllp.com RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Faces Class Action Over Speed Camera Tickets ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Zapotosky, writing for The Washington Post, reports that Riverdale Park is facing a class-action lawsuit claiming that tens of thousands of speed camera tickets should be invalidated because they were not properly approved by a police officer -- a case that could cost the small town in Prince George's County millions of dollars. The suit, filed in Prince George's County Circuit Court last week and first reported by Fox 5, claims that two civilian employees used a Riverdale Park police corporal's computer login to approve thousands of tickets, including some when the corporal was away on leave. The practice is a violation of Maryland law -- which requires that tickets be authorized by a police officer -- and one that the corporal, Clayton Alford, and the civilian employees objected to with their supervisors, said Timothy P. Leahy, the Bowie lawyer who filed the suit. SONY MUSIC: Roy Thomas Baker Files Suit Over Digital Royalties -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Morris, writing for Variety, reports that producer Roy Thomas Baker has filed a wide-ranging breach of contract suit against Sony Music Entertainment, alleging underpayment of nearly half a million dollars in royalties for two bestselling Journey albums of the '70s and the band's greatest hits package. Among Mr. Baker's allegations, he claims that he was shortchanged on royalties for digital downloads and ringtones. More than a dozen class actions and individual suits have mounted similar claims in the wake of a 2010 appellate court ruling mandating higher payments for digital music sales. Mr. Baker opted out of a class action filed against Sony by Cheap Trick, the Allman Brothers and others that was settled earlier this year. Present suit claims the settlement was "wholly insufficient." Mr. Baker is being represented by Nashville litigator Richard Busch, who is also acting on behalf of such artists as Kenny Rogers, Toto, "Weird Al" Yankovic and Peter Frampton in their individual digital royalties claims against their labels. A top '70s producer best known for his work on Queen's 1975 album "A Night at the Opera" and its hit "Bohemian Rhapsody," Mr. Baker helmed Journey's breakthrough albums "Infinity" (1978) and "Evolution" (1979) under a 1977 agreement with Sony's predecessor CBS Records. Those Columbia releases have both been certified triple platinum for sales of more than 3 million by the RIAA. Some of the hits on those two collections found their way onto Journey's "Greatest Hits" compilation. The suit claims that package has sold more than 80 million copies and has spent more than 887 weeks on the national album chart. Royalties from a "Greatest Hits" DVD are also at issue. Mr. Baker's suit is the product of an audit of Sony's books regarding the company's payments from January 2007-June 2010. Action claims underpayments plus interest of $475,000 for the period, while Sony has claimed underpayment of just $68,000 for the period. In one of its main claims, the suit specifically cites the appellate decision in F.B.T. Productions vs. Aftermath Records -- the so-called "Eminem case" -- which ruled royalties for digital downloads and ringtones should be calculated at the far higher contractual rate (usually 50% of net receipts) for third-party licenses, and not as sales. The difference between what Sony paid and what Mr. Baker says he is due amounts to more than $200,000, according to the action. Mr. Baker additionally claims he was shorted on royalties from domestic and foreign physical sales, and that several specious or non-existent deductions were applied. He alleges he was paid no royalties whatsoever for the "Greatest Hits" DVD. A Sony spokesman had no comment. SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Court Direction in ERISA-Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it awaits further direction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit with respect its interlocutory appeal filed in an ERISA class action suit. Beginning in July 2008, the Company, officers and directors of the Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for immediate interlocutory appeal. On January 3, 2011, the District Court granted both motions. On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit Court"). On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. The Company awaits further direction from the Circuit Court. SUNTRUST BANKS: Awaits Reconsideration Bid Ruling in TRUPs Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for reconsideration in the consolidated lawsuit over its sale of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Beginning in May 2009, the Company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH"), SunTrust Capital IX, officers and directors of the Company, and others were named in three putative class actions arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities ("TRUPs") of SunTrust Banks, Inc. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the relevant registration statement and accompanying prospectus misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the Company's allowance for loan and lease loss reserves, the Company's capital position, and its internal risk controls. Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with their investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the TRUPs. These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont Holdings Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and on November 30, 2009, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. On January 29, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. This motion was granted, with leave to amend, on September 10, 2010. On October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in an attempt to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court's dismissal decision. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 21, 2011. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's claims that the Company misrepresented the adequacy of its loan loss reserves for 2007 but dismissed all other claims against the Company and limited discovery in the initial stages of the case to the question of SunTrust's subjective belief as to the adequacy of those reserves at the time of the offering. SunTrust subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision and a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of that motion. The Court granted the motion to stay and the parties are awaiting a decision on the motion for reconsideration. SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Lehman-Related Suits Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss small class action lawsuits involving a subsidiary of SunTrust Banks, Inc., related to Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.'s stock offerings remain pending, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH"), along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several individual and putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas and Washington. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and seek unspecified damages. All cases have now been transferred for coordination to the multi- district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the class claims against STRH and the other underwriter defendants. A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court on December 15, 2011. The class notice and opt-out process is complete and the class settlement approval process has been completed. A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remain pending and will move forward, each on its own schedule. Motions to dismiss are pending in each of these cases. SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Colonial Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. ("STRH"), the full-service corporate and investment banking arm of SunTrust Banks, Inc., certain other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern District entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality. On August 28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy. The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently has ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. This amended complaint has been filed and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 3 Suits Over Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. is currently defending three class action lawsuits relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer accounts, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer accounts. The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al. was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on May 6, 2009. This action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result of the method of posting order used by the Company, which allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a putative class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been submitted to the bank for payment," as well as "all SunTrust account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges." Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both motions were denied. The denial of the motion to compel arbitration was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eleventh Circuit remanded this matter back to the District Court with instructions to the District Court to review its prior ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. The District Court then denied SunTrust's motion to compel arbitration for different reasons. SunTrust appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit and, on March 1, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and ordered that SunTrust's Motion to Compel Arbitration be granted. Plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, which was denied. The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. SunTrust has filed a motion to compel arbitration. On March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the named plaintiff could proceed with the case as a class rather than as an individual action. SunTrust has filed an appeal of this decision. The third of these cases, Byrd v. SunTrust Bank, was filed on April 23, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. This case is substantially similar to the Bickerstaff matter. SunTrust has filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Classic Mutual Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. disclosed in its August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it has filed a motion to dismiss remaining claims in a class action lawsuit over its Classic Mutual Funds. On March 11, 2011, the Company, officers and directors of the Company, and certain other Company employees were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The plaintiff purports to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. The Affiliated Funds Class Action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company believes that based on the Court's Order, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's remaining claims and has filed a motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on this ground. SUNTRUST BANKS: To Seek Dismissal of Captive Reinsurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. ("STM") and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of borrowers. The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also. The U.S. Supreme Court recently withdrew its grant of cert. in Edwards and, as a result, the Company expects that the stays in these cases will be lifted. A motion to dismiss already has been filed in Thurmond and the Company intends to file a similar motion in Acosta. TACO BELL: Workers File Overtime Class Action --------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Taco Bell deleted workers' hours from time cards to cheat them of overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court. UBS FINANCIAL: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott+Scott LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico and certain officers, subsidiaries, affiliates and divisions of UBS PR. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the following UBS PR-affiliated closed-end funds during the time period between January 1, 2008 to May 1, 2012, inclusive: Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund IV, Inc.; Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund III, Inc.; Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund V, Inc.; Puerto Rico Investors Bond Fund I, Inc.; Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Bond Fund, Inc.; and Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Bond Fund II, Inc. The putative class action seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), the Puerto Rico Securities Act and common law. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding UBS PR CEFs. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants promoted UBS PR CEFs' extraordinary market returns, low risk and low volatility, while simultaneously not disclosing that CEFs' prices and liquidity were manipulated by UBS PR's support of the market. The complaint also alleges that Defendants misrepresented and/or did not disclose in the CEFs' offering documents and related communications that: (a) CEF prices were set solely at the discretion of Defendants and not based on market forces such as supply and demand; (b) as the dominant CEF broker- dealer, UBS PR controlled the secondary market for CEFs, and that any secondary market sales investors wanted to make depended largely on UBS PR's ability to solicit additional customers or its own willingness to purchase shares into its inventory; (c) UBS PR was purchasing millions of dollars of CEF shares into its own inventory while promoting the appearance of a liquid market, and thereby artificially propping up prices and creating the appearance of liquidity; and (d) UBS PR's corporate parent was pressuring UBS PR to reduce its inventory of CEF shares as its inventory rose well beyond internal limits. According to the complaint, in selling 75% of its inventory and ceasing to use its inventory to support the CEF secondary market, UBS PR caused prices to decline, thereby harming class members. If you purchased UBS PR CEFs during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than October 15, 2012. 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 website for more information: Scott+Scott is a class action law firm, with offices in New York, Connecticut, Ohio and California. WAL-MART: 3rd. Cir. Affirms Class Decertification in Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey Law Journal reports that Wal-Mart has prevailed in nearly decade-long class action litigation over its use of contract janitorial services that hire immigrant labor. The Third Circuit has affirmed decertification of the class, ruling the "similarities among the proposed plaintiffs are too few, and the differences among the proposed plaintiffs are too many." WESTERN HEALTH: May Face Class Action Over Patient Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- VOCM reports that a Corner Brook area lawyer is planning to launch a class action lawsuit against Western Health for patients whose private personal medical files were accessed. Western Health revealed this summer that someone had been accessing, without an authorized purpose, the files of up to one thousand patients. That employee was later dismissed. On VOCM Backtalk with Paddy Daly, Joyce called to say she was shocked and angered to learn that her files and those of close family members, were viewed. WYNNPHARM INC: Faces Suit Over Sale of Dona Glucosamine Product --------------------------------------------------------------- Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. WynnPharm, Inc., Case No. L-005972-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., August 7, 2012) is brought on behalf of a putative class that comprises all nationwide purchasers of Dona Glucosamine for the six year period preceding the filing of the lawsuit. The Defendant, on a nationwide basis, advertised, promoted, marketed and distributed a purportedly pure, unadulterated, high quality dietary supplement, in caplet form, known as Dona Maximum Strength Crystalline Glucosamine Sulfate, used by consumers to slow the progression of osteoarthritis and to reduce joint pain associated therewith, Mr. Hoffman asserts. However, he contends, the Defendant's promises and representations concerning the purity and quality of its product were false. He explains that based upon sophisticated, independent laboratory analysis, the Defendant's product contained Eudragit RL, a polymer that is combined with a drug or other active agent to release the drug or other active agent, here Glucosamine Sulfate, in a pre-designed manner. Eudragit RL is not approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration for use in dietary supplements, such as the product sold by the Defendant. Mr. Hoffman is a resident of Bergen, New Jersey. WynnPharm is a New Jersey corporation based in Eatontown, New Jersey. The Defendant advertised, marketed, distributed and sold Dona Glucosamine in commerce throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit: Harold H. Hoffman, Esq. 240 Grand Avenue Englewood, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 569-0086 E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net ********* 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 * * *