/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120829.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 29, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 171 Headlines ABBOTT LABS: Baron & Budd Files Deceptive Labeling Class Action AMERICAN LICORICE: Recalls Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists ARAMARK UNIFORM: Removes "Santiago" Suit to Calif. District Ct. BAY VALLEY: Recalls Pecan Toppings Due to Undeclared Almonds BP: Drivers Mull Class Action Over Bad Gas Crisis CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Cohen Milstein Lead Counsel in Class Action CENTRAL REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action in Colorado CREEKSTONE FARMS: Settles Slaughterhouse Workers' Class Action DIRECTORS GUILD: No Cause to Modify Class Action Settlement H&R BLOCK: Judge Approves $35-Million Class Action Settlement ING DIRECT: Court Allows Mortgage Litig. To Proceed as Class Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Tosses Home Equity Line Class Action MERITOR INC: Direct Purchaser Claims Pending in Filters Suit NASDAQ OMX: Faces Numerous Class Action Suits Over Facebook IPO PG&E: Faces Class Action Over 2010 Pipeline Explosion PITTSBURGH, PA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Police Hiring Bias PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From "Begay" Class Suit Dismissal Pending PROTICA INC: Recalls Body Choice "Protein Shots" & Other Products PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals From Suit Dismissals Still Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Summary Judg. Bid Pending in "Clark" Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Cert. Bid in N.J. Consolidated Suit Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Certification Bid in SGLI/VGLI MDL Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed SLM CORP: Awaits Approval of $35MM Securities Suit Settlement SOUTHERN COPPER: Appeals in Consolidated Suit vs. AMC Pending SPRINT NEXTEL: To Arbitrate Claims for Bogus Roaming Fees ST. LOUIS, MO: Inmates Want to Turn Suit Into Class Action SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend Commercial Claims Suits TRAVELZOO INC: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. TRUE NUTRITION: Recalls Whey Protein Products UNITED COLLECTION: Court Allows FDCPA Class Action to Proceed UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Cert. Ruling in One of Two Canadian Suits UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Suit Still Pending in New York Court UNITED PARCEL: Defends Two Suits Over Rebranding of UPS Store US NURSING: Accused of Not Paying All Wages to Replacement Staff VOLUME SERVICES: Sued for Denying Tips to Servers & Runners W. ROSS MACDONALD: Crown Blames Government in Class Action XCEL ENERGY: Appeal From 2nd "Comer" Suit Dismissal Pending ZIPCAR INC: Class Suit Over Late Fee Charges Dismissed in July ********* ABBOTT LABS: Baron & Budd Files Deceptive Labeling Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Baron and Budd attorneys filed a deceptive labeling class action lawsuit on Aug. 24 against Abbott Laboratories concerning the company's "Ensure Muscle Health" and "Ensure Clinical Strength" products. The lawsuit alleges that Abbott Laboratories engages in deceptive and misleading practices in connection with the marketing of its products and charges the company with violations of multiple laws. The complaint was filed on behalf of Michael J. Otto of California and a class of similarly situated consumers across the country who purchased Ensure Muscle Health or Ensure Clinical Strength drinks. Baron and Budd attorneys Roland Tellis and Mark Pifko serve as counsel in the lawsuit. According to the complaint, Abbott capitalizes on the fears of mature Americans who are worried about muscle loss, promising that drinking the products alone will "help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time." To build consumer trust, Abbott touts the purported health benefits of these products with invented, pseudo-scientific terms such as "Revigor," and proclamations like, the "#1 doctor recommended brand," the lawsuit states. As alleged in the lawsuit, to further establish credibility for the company's claims, Abbot also uses phrases such as "clinical nutrition." However, as alleged in the lawsuit, nowhere on the packaging of the products does Abbott disclose that the products cannot help rebuild muscle and strength in the general population of consumers to whom the products are sold -- including in Abbott's target market of healthy adults -- unless the products are used in combination with a regular exercise program. Instead, Abbott chose to selectively omit this material information from the labels for the Products to increase sales by inducing the general population of consumers who will not benefit from the products to purchase and consume them anyway, the lawsuit states. "It's hard to imagine a more personal affront than deceiving people about what they put in their bodies," said Baron and Budd attorney Mark Pifko. "A sophisticated company like Abbott should be held accountable for knowingly confusing and misleading its customers." About Baron and Budd, P.C. Baron and Budd -- http://www.baronandbudd.com-- is a plaintiffs' law firm with more than 30 years' experience fighting to protect what's right for consumers. AMERICAN LICORICE: Recalls Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists ------------------------------------------------------------- American Licorice Company of Union City, California, is recalling 16 oz. Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists due to elevated levels of lead. Only the one pound bag (16 oz.) of Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists containing "Best Before Date" of 020413 are affected by this recall. American Licorice is notifying consumers and customers not to consume this candy. American Licorice learned from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), that some Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists contain levels of lead that could potentially cause health problems to consumers, particularly infants, small children, and pregnant women. American Licorice immediately segregated its entire inventory of 16 oz. Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists. Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists is a black licorice candy made from molasses, wheat flour, corn syrup, caramel coloring, licorice extract, salt, and anise flavor. The 16 oz. bag is red and white in color with a window in the package to display the black licorice twists. A picture of the recalled products' label is available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316853.htm Recent analysis of Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists by CDPH found that the candy contained lead levels as high as .33 parts per million (ppm). This concentration of lead could provide up to 13.2 micrograms of lead per serving and children under 6 years of age should not consume more than 6.0 micrograms of lead per day from all dietary sources. Therefore, the CDPH's position is that the sale of this lot of the 16 oz. Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists is in violation of California statutes. American Licorice wants to ensure its products are safe. Consequently, in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the CDPH, American Licorice is voluntarily recalling all 16 oz. Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists from all of its customers with affected product. Consumers in possession of Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists with the "Best Before Date" of 020413 should not eat the candy and should return it to their place of purchase for a full refund. The "Best Before Date" is located in black ink on the rear of the package. Pregnant women and parents of children who may have consumed any candy should consult with their physician or health care provider to determine whether further medical testing is required. For more information about lead poisoning, parents and caretakers should contact their local childhood lead poisoning prevention program or local public health department. American Licorice will be sending recall notices to all of its affected customers. Please contact American Licorice Consumer Support at 886-442-2783 for further information. ARAMARK UNIFORM: Removes "Santiago" Suit to Calif. District Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Santiago, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Aramark Uniform and Career Apparel, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG 12640163 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 20, 2012) seeks unpaid wages, disgorgement, restitution and other relief due to the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges and seeks remedies for these seven causes of action: (1) failure to provide premium pay for overtime hours worked; (2) failure to pay all wages earned; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (6) unfair business practices; and (7) failure to pay wages upon termination. Mr. Santiago is a resident of the state of California. Between approximately 2003 and August 2010, he was employed by Aramark as a Commission Route Sales Representative at its Hayward depot. Mr. Santiago contends that, among other things, he was not properly paid for all hours worked, and has received no premium pay for hours worked over 40 in a week. Aramark is a Delaware limited liability corporation conducting business throughout California, including the "Bay Area" and Alameda County. Mr. Santiago is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Company removed the lawsuit on August 24, 2012, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Aramark argues that the removal is proper because district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States of America. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:12-cv-04462 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Jade Butman, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com jbutman@kellergrover.com - and - Scot Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 447-0100 Facsimile: (916) 933-5533 E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Kathryn M. Nazarian, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: emeckley@morganlewis.com knazarian@morganlewis.com BAY VALLEY: Recalls Pecan Toppings Due to Undeclared Almonds ------------------------------------------------------------ Bay Valley Foods is voluntarily recalling packages of Naturally Fresh(R) Roasted & Glazed Pecan Pieces Salad Toppings because some of the packages may contain almonds that are not listed in the ingredient statement. Consumers who have allergies to almonds run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume the mislabeled product. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this alert, and there is no risk to consumers who are not allergic to almonds. The recalled packages of Naturally Fresh(R) Roasted & Glazed Pecan Pieces Salad Toppings were distributed between June 26, 2012, and August 22, 2012, in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The recall was initiated after the company received notice from a customer that almonds were found in some packages of the product. The recalled product, Naturally Fresh(R) Roasted & Glazed Pecan Pieces Salad Toppings, comes in a 3.5 ounce pouch-type package and is marked with "Best By" dates of 07 APR 13 and 08 APR 13. The UPC code is (0)7653905520(0). Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316869.htm Consumers are advised to destroy or return any unused portions to the place of purchase for refund. Consumers with questions may contact Bay Valley Foods Consumer Response Department at 1-800- 983-0823, Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central Standard Time. BP: Drivers Mull Class Action Over Bad Gas Crisis ------------------------------------------------- CBS Chicago reports that drivers whose vehicles have been affected by bad gas from BP are threatening to take action. As WBBM Newsradio's Michele Fiore reports, while the Indiana's Attorney General's office leads an investigation to oversee BP's claims process, attorneys in Indianapolis and Merrillville are gathering evidence for a class action lawsuit, seeking full compensation for damages. Customers who used the bad gas, then had trouble starting their vehicles and stalling could join the suit. BP has said it believes a 50,000-barrel batch of gasoline shipped from its Whiting fuel storage terminal Aug. 13-17 contained a higher level of a polymeric residue, which is difficult to burn in automobile engines. While the problem is centered in Lake County, Ind., BP executives said the fuel has made its way across state lines into Illinois and Wisconsin. Motorists from southwestern Michigan have also called the oil giant. According to a statement on the company Web site, the BP refinery in Whiting, Ind., has returned to normal production, but higher grades of fuel are still undergoing further tests, so won't be sold for now. Chicago motorists pulling up to BP stations on Aug. 23 found premium and midgrade gas unavailable. BP spokesman Scott Dean said that more than 10,000 motorists have called or e-mailed to complain, and BP has begun paying claims. BP said some of the tainted gasoline was sold at stations that are not BP-branded, including Thornton and Costco stations. "BP stands by every gallon of gasoline we sell," Mr. Dean said. Mr. Dean said BP would pay for a replacement tank of gas and any repairs made necessary by bad gas. Mr. Dean said customers can make complaints by one at (800) 333- 3991 or 800-599-9040, can e-mail bpconsum@bp.com or visit http://www.bpresponse.com CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Cohen Milstein Lead Counsel in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Heraldonline.com reports that a New Jersey federal judge on Aug. 22 appointed Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll lead counsel in a class action securities fraud lawsuit against Central European Distribution Corporation (CEDC). The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Simandle also appointed the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association as lead plaintiffs in the case. "We are very pleased with Judge Simandle's decision, which confirms that Arkansas and Fresno are well-qualified to represent the interests of the Class and recognizes that Cohen Milstein will vigorously and effectively prosecute the claims in this case," said Daniel S. Sommers, one of the lawyers for Plaintiffs. "We are glad to be past this preliminary stage of the case and look forward to litigating the merits of the claims," said Cohen Milstein managing partner Steven J. Toll. "We believe investors were misled by defendants' misrepresentations and our goal is to recover as much of their losses as we can." CEDC is primarily an importer and exporter of alcoholic beverages. CEDC is one of the largest vodka producers in the world and has the largest "integrated spirit business' in Central and Eastern Europe. Plaintiffs allege that CEDC and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements regarding CEDC's business and prospects that deceived investors and caused Plaintiffs to purchase the stock at artificially inflated prices. On March 1, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing financial results for 2010. The Company reported net losses exceeding $90 million, shocking investors. The Company's stock fell more than 37 percent, down more than $8.50 per share, causing Plaintiffs' losses. Additional information about the case is available online at http://is.gd/AYk9pZ CENTRAL REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- The Weekend Telegram reports that Shawna Marie Anne Thompson is named as the plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed against the Central Regional Health Authority for breaches of patient medical records and personal health information. Ms. Thompson is a former resident of central Newfoundland who now lives in St. John's. A statement of claim notes that Ms. Thompson proposes to bring a class-proceeding on behalf of herself and a class of other Canadian residents whose medical records were inappropriately accessed by the health authority's employees. The class-action follows similar ones filed recently against Eastern Health and Western Health. The class-action lawsuit claims negligence by the health authority for not having proper management and operations procedures in place to reasonably prevent the breach of private information. Members of the class-action claim that the conduct of the defendant's employees involved constitute a gross violation of the privacy rights of patients and thus is an appropriate case for punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages. St. John's lawyer Bob Buckingham, who is representing Ms. Thompson in the case, said Ms. Thompson received information last November which led her to believe her personal health information was breached. "Ms. Thompson launched a complaint through the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The complaint inquiry confirmed the violation," Mr. Buckingham said in a news release. "Ms. Thompson was informed that her personal health information had been inappropriately accessed by an employee of Central Health and her medical records had been extensively accessed over a period of seven years." Ms. Thompson said the situation has caused her anxiety and difficulty sleeping. "I feel violated, angry and very upset knowing my personal medical information has been breached and, furthermore, shared with non- essential personnel," Ms. Thomson is quoted in the release. "This is further disturbing given that the breaches, on occasion, were done for personal reasons of the staff person. "Knowing there are people out there who know of my medical and personal information worries me very much. I wonder how much of it was shared and with whom? I am to the point I will not go to the doctor unless I am very ill because I am fearful anything I give to a health-care provider will be reported to someone who does not need to know my information." CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action in Colorado -------------------------------------------------------------- The Denver, Colorado law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP on Aug. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. between February 1, 2012 and July 19, 2012, inclusive. What actions may I take at this time? If you purchased or acquired shares during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must request appointment no later than October 16, 2012. A "lead plaintiff" works with counsel to direct the litigation and participates in important decisions, including the amount of compensation to accept in settlement of the class action. Members of the putative class may seek appointment through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain absent class members. If you would like to discuss this action, the lead plaintiff process, or have any questions concerning this notice, please contact Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. at (888) 300-3362 x302 or via e-mail at jeff@dyerberens.com What are the allegations in the complaint? Chipotle develops and operates "fast-casual," fresh Mexican food restaurants in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and France. The company is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a) Chipotle did not have the pricing power to implement price increases sufficient to offset rising food costs and, as a result, the company's margins would be under pressure as Chipotle would be unable to pass these commodity costs off to the consumers; (b) demand for Chipotle was slowing due to the economy and increased competition and could not support the company's aggressive 2012 earnings forecasts; and (c) Chipotle was experiencing a deceleration of growth as it was becoming a mature company. Based upon the foregoing, the complaint charges certain company officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP. CREEKSTONE FARMS: Settles Slaughterhouse Workers' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit by workers at a south-central Kansas slaughterhouse has been settled in mediation. No details of the settlement in the case against Creekstone Farms Premium Beef are included in a notice filed on Aug. 23 in court. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an estimated 700 workers at the Arkansas City packing plant over so-called "gang time" compensation. The practice pays employees only when product is moving, plus 10 minutes for putting on and removing protective gear. The workers also claimed the company wasn't paying for all the time they worked. Creekstone contended it paid employees for all time worked, including overtime. The litigation had been granted conditional class-action status in February. DIRECTORS GUILD: No Cause to Modify Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Dave McNary, writing for Variety, reports that The Directors Guild of America is in line with its 2008 foreign levies class-action settlement, and there is no cause to modify it, a state court judge supervising three such cases has ruled. The Aug. 22 ruling came over strenuous objections that the DGA has been stonewalling over how it handles millions in funds. Neville Johnson, attorney for plaintiff William Webb, complained that the guild's single-page yearly accounting violates the spirit of the agreement, adding that the DGA has stymied his efforts to obtain information in areas such as administrative fees. "It's been like dealing with the Kremlin," Mr. Johnson said. "The reports are incoherent." Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Wiley declared repeatedly during an hourlong hearing that his role precluded him from revising the settlement and denied Johnson's motion "with prejudice" -- meaning he will not entertain another request. "I'm a legal bureaucrat," he added. DGA attorney Daniel Schechter told Judge Wiley that Mr. Johnson had not raised the issue during the first three years of the settlement and accused him of wanting to rewrite the terms. Mr. Webb's suit alleged the DGA did not have the authority to make foreign collections, had not communicated that info to non-members and had not paid them. The monies -- which began to flow two decades ago -- are due to copyright holders as compensation for reuse, such as taxes on video rentals, cable retransmissions and purchases of blank videocassettes and DVDs. In the 2008 settlement, the DGA said it had distributed $48 million in levies to DGA members and more than $4.9 million to directors who were not DGA members. Those figures have more than doubled. "The DGA has distributed over $121 million in foreign levies, including over $13 million to more than 3,400 non-members," a DGA spokesperson said. "It was a hard-fought effort to attain these funds and we are very proud of our efforts. We are pleased with the judge's decision today to deny with prejudice the plaintiff's motions." The settlement provided for an outside accounting firm to conduct an independent review of the foreign levies program, but Johnson said the DGA has not provided accountability and transparency. Judge Wiley asserted during the hearing that Mr. Johnson should have negotiated different terms. "A deal is a deal," he added. Judge Wiley also cited similar grounds for rebuffing Mr. Johnson's motions for attorney fees and consultant fees in the three suits against the DGA, Screen Actors Guild and the Writers Guild of America. The jurist noted the settlements specified that there would be no additional attorney fees, brushing aside Mr. Johnson's assertions that SAG and the DGA had been uncooperative and hostile. Mr. Johnson said the WGA had been far more cooperative than the other two guilds following its own 2010 settlement. He indicated that he would file a motion to appoint a new counsel in the DGA case. The plaintiff in the WGA case, William Richert ("Winter Kills"), also appeared in court Wednesday to complain about the lack of disclosure in the wake of the settlement, signed by the now- retired Judge Carl West. "I signed the settlement because Judge West told me that he would watch this closely for the next three years," he added. "The court is now saying 'drop dead' to American writers." Judge Wiley again responded that terms of the settlements prevented him from requiring the guilds to do more. The WGA reported earlier this year it had collected nearly $130 million in foreign levies over the past two decades and distributed $104 million of those funds. SAG, which settled Ken Osmond's suit last year, reported last year that it had collected $20.7 million and distributed $9.8 million. H&R BLOCK: Judge Approves $35-Million Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Davis, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a federal judge has approved up to $35 million in payments to a group of California employees who sued a unit of Kansas City-based H&R Block. The employees had sought class action claims against Block on multiple charges related to pay, expense reimbursement, meal periods and other issues in a 2009 lawsuit. Similar charges appeared in another 2009 lawsuit against Block. Ultimately, the settlement covered claims that Block failed to "pay accurate wage statements" and failed to pay all wages due when an employee was terminated, as well as claims for civil penalties, according to a court order. The two sides twice failed to settle the case last year through daylong mediation sessions. They then reached a tentative settlement last October on the same day the court planned to hear each side's request for a summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in the northern district of California approved the settlement on Aug. 22. Her ruling said the case covers 18,700 Block employees with an average claim of $1,200. The employees were "all seasonal, non-exempt tax professional employees who were or are employed" by Block as tax preparers in California between June 9, 2006, and the end of 2010. Attorneys for the employees could not be reached. Block officials did not comment on the settlement. But spokesman Gene King said the case was brought originally under California law and "the state does have some different wage laws than other states." The lawsuit named H&R Block Enterprises LLC as the defendant. ING DIRECT: Court Allows Mortgage Litig. To Proceed as Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan D. Selbin of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, together with Matthew R. Wilson of the law firm Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, announced on August 28, 2012, that the federal court overseeing the litigation against ING Direct for allegedly refusing to honor its "Rate Renew" mortgage refinancing guarantee issued an order on August 27 allowing the case to proceed as a class action. "ING customers in ten states are now a significant step closer to holding ING accountable for its classic bait-and-switch marketing tactic," Mr. Selbin stated. "For four years, ING aggressively promoted, and convinced consumers nationwide to sign up for, its short-term Easy Orange and Orange mortgage loans on the promise that they would only have to pay ING $500 or $750 to refinance their ARM and balloon loans when the period of fixed interest ended under the Rate Renew program." The lawsuit alleges that ING systematically broke its promise by charging its customers higher costs when they sought to refinance, or denying them the right to refinance at all. Wilson added that "ING's alleged scheme is all the more egregious because ING has marketed itself to borrowers as a bank that does not employ hidden fees, while at the same time manipulating its Rate Renew program to increase its bottom line." Judge Leonard P. Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware certified the following class, "All individuals who purchased or retained an ING Easy Orange or Orange Loan at any time between October 1, 2005 and April 23, 2009 who were residents of the following states at the time of purchase: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Washington." A copy of the Court's order and plaintiffs' complaint can be found at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/inglawsuit Background on the ING Direct Class Action Rate Renew Lawsuit The complaint charges that ING Direct breached its promise to allow its customers to refinance their home mortgages for a fixed flat fee of $500 or $750. From October 2005 through May 2009, ING promoted this "Rate Renew" program as a benefit of choosing ING mortgages over competitors'. Later, beginning in May 2009, ING began charging a higher fee of one-monthly mortgage payment for refinancing using "Rate Renew," despite its earlier and lower advertised price. As a result, the lawsuit alleges, many consumers paid more to refinance their loans using "Rate Renew" than they were originally promised and even though they met the terms and conditions of ING's original "Rate Renew" offer. Notice to California ING Orange Loan Customers Almost one-third of the ING customers nationwide that sought to take advantage of its Rate Renew offer from 2005 to 2009 were residents of California. California is not one of the states currently included in the class certified by the Court. Californians and all others who received advertising that guaranteed a $500 or $750 flat-fee "Rate Renewal" for refinancing their mortgage with ING are welcome to contact attorney Daniel Hutchinson in Lieff Cabraser's San Francisco office toll free at 1-800-541-7358 or visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com/inglawsuitto learn more about the litigation and to submit your complaint. There is no charge or obligation for Lieff Cabraser's review of your complaint. Source/Contact Jonathan D. Selbin LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Tel. No.: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Tosses Home Equity Line Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Erica Teichert, writing for Law360, reports that an Alabama federal judge tossed a putative class action against JPMorgan Chase Bank NA on Aug. 21 that alleged the bank unlawfully changed the terms of its home equity line of credit plans, noting that the bank's term interpretations were consistent with the contracts. Plaintiff Marion Dillman sued the bank in February 2011 saying it unilaterally modified the way it credited HELOC payments in order to prolong the debt and increase interest payments, which violated the Truth in Lending Act. MERITOR INC: Direct Purchaser Claims Pending in Filters Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Meritor, Inc., continues to defend itself from claims filed by direct purchasers in a multidistrict litigation relating to automotive filters, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012. On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that several filter manufacturers and their affiliated corporate entities, including a prior subsidiary of the Company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This lawsuit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the defendants. Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The cases have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation proceeding in Federal court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on these same allegations. On May 25, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington informed the Company that it also was investigating the allegations raised in these lawsuits. On August 9, 2010, the County of Suffolk, New York, filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York based on the same allegations. The case was transferred to the multi-district litigation proceeding in Illinois, but has been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement that continues until thirty days after the claims by the indirect purchasers in the multi-district litigation are terminated, settled, or dismissed. On April 14, 2011, the judge in that multi-district litigation granted a stay on discovery and depositions until July 25, 2011. The stay was subsequently extended until August 23, 2011, and, on October 12, 2011, was further extended pending the court's ruling on various motions. On January 19, 2012, counsel for the defendants and counsel for all purported class plaintiffs participated in a settlement conference that was facilitated by the magistrate for the judge in the multi-district litigation. None of the parties were able to reach any agreement at that conference and, on January 20, 2012, the court ruled on the motions and vacated the stay on discovery and depositions. In February 2012 the other remaining defendants reached preliminary settlement with all plaintiffs for $13 million, leaving the Company as the sole remaining defendant. These preliminary settlements were allocated 65 percent to the direct purchasers and 35 percent to the remaining plaintiffs (indirect purchasers). In April 2012, the company settled with indirect purchasers for $3.1 million. Based on management's assessment, the Company has recognized a $5.8 million liability in discontinued operations at June 30, 2012, for the direct purchasers' portion of this matter. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against the claims raised in all of these actions and intends to vigorously defend itself. However, there is considerable uncertainty around the potential outcomes in a jury trial, and if this matter were to proceed to trial and were ultimately decided by a jury in favor of plaintiffs, it is possible that awarded damages could materially exceed the recorded liability by an amount that the company is unable to reasonably estimate at this time. Meritor, Inc., headquartered in Troy, Michigan, is a global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules and components serving light vehicles, commercial trucks, trailers, and specialty original equipment manufacturers, as well as certain aftermarkets. NASDAQ OMX: Faces Numerous Class Action Suits Over Facebook IPO --------------------------------------------------------------- The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. is facing numerous lawsuits arising from Facebook Inc.'s initial public offering, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In the second quarter of 2012, the Company became a party to several legal and regulatory proceedings relating to the Facebook, Inc. initial public offering that occurred on May 18, 2012. The Company is defendant in the following putative class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Goldberg, et al. v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Yan v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Alfonso, et al. v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Levy v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Amin v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Steinman v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Roderick v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, McGinty v. NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, and First New York Securities LLC, et al. v. NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. Eight of these lawsuits have been brought by retail investors seeking damages for alleged negligence by the Company in connection with the Facebook IPO. The ninth lawsuit was brought by professional proprietary trading firms for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5, promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the Facebook IPO. The Company is a defendant in several other lawsuits brought by individual investors, seeking damages for alleged negligence and fraud by the Company in connection with the Facebook IPO. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. As such, the Company has not recorded a reserve as it is not probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of these condensed consolidated financial statements. PG&E: Faces Class Action Over 2010 Pipeline Explosion ----------------------------------------------------- Martin Ricard, writing for SouthSanFranciscoPatch, reports that a San Bruno woman and a San Rafael man filed a class-action lawsuit on Aug. 23 against PG&E for the 2010 pipeline explosion in San Bruno, claiming that the utility diverted millions of dollars of ratepayer money that was supposed to be spent on pipeline safety. In the lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, the plaintiffs, who are PG&E customers, allege that the utility collected more than $100 million in fees -- authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission -- from customers throughout the state with the promise that the money would be spent on gas safety and operations projects. But after collecting the fees, PG&E repeatedly failed to spend the money and instead used the funds toward executive compensation and bonuses. "This class action is brought to remedy the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices by PG&E," Brian Kabateck, the lead lawyer in the case, said in a statement. "PG&E put lives at risk because of its actions and we intend to hold the company responsible for them. We want to prevent another incident like San Bruno." The class-action suit, filed on behalf of Filomena Guerrero, of San Bruno, and Theodore Kagan, of San Rafael, calls for a jury trial and demands restitution for all California and San Bruno residents who were PG&E customers from 1997 to 2010. PG&E serves about 4 million customers throughout the state. This lawsuit follows on the heels of hundreds of other lawsuits that were filed against PG&E shortly after the San Bruno fire, which left eight people dead and 38 homes destroyed. The trial for those lawsuits, which now represent more than 300 residents, is scheduled to begin on Oct. 9. PG&E has already reached a number of confidential settlements with residents who were affected by the disaster, including all of the families whose relatives died in the fire. PITTSBURGH, PA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Police Hiring Bias --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Begos, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the city of Pittsburgh on Aug. 23, accusing the Bureau of Police of discriminating against blacks in hiring. "Our investigation shows that every stage of the selection process involves shenanigans that hurt minority applicants," said Witold Walczak, ACLU's legal director. The lawsuit claims that 368 officers have been hired since 2001 but only 14 of those have been African-American. City Solicitor Daniel Regan disputed the discrimination allegations, saying that the city complies with all federal and state laws and that Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is committed to having a diverse workforce. The lead plaintiff is James Foster, who first applied to the Pittsburgh police in 2008. The ACLU said he was No. 3 on a final list of officers but was passed over by at least 32 white applicants who ranked lower on the list. Another plaintiff is Mike Sharp, who graduated from the Police Training Academy at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and applied in 2009. The lawsuit alleges that he was No. 11 on the final list but wasn't selected, though 49 hiring offers were made. The ACLU alleges that only 3.8 percent of new officers have been black, but 26 percent of the city's population is black. The lawsuit seeks a halt to the department's current hiring process and a correction of what it calls the bureau's discriminatory policies. It also seeks to have Messrs. Foster and Sharp hired as officers and given back pay. PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From "Begay" Class Suit Dismissal Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action, captioned Begay v. PNM Resources, Inc., et al., was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009 in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation. Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general assertions that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-of-way or both. The plaintiffs, who have sued the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive trust. They have also included a breach of trust claim against the United States and its Secretary of the Interior. PNM and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action. In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking redress in federal court. In May 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's decision to the DOI Board of Appeals. On February 21, 2012, the DOI Board of Appeals ordered additional briefing on the merits of the appeal. PNM is participating in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights- of-way implicated in the appeal. PNM says it cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the range of potential outcomes at this time. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. PNM Resources, Inc. -- http://www.pnmresources.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, operates in energy and energy-related businesses in the United States. It primarily engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. The Company generates electricity using coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar, and wind energy. It also provides regulated transmission and distribution services. The Company is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico. PROTICA INC: Recalls Body Choice "Protein Shots" & Other Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- On August 17, 2012, Protica Inc. of Whitehall, Pennsylvania, had undertaken a voluntary product withdrawal of four products including Body Choice "Protein Shots", Nutritional Resources "Protein Wave", ProBalance "Protein to Go French Vanilla Latte" and "Protein to Go Milk Chocolate Shake" because they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled. Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. No illnesses have been confirmed to date. The problem with the lots below was discovered when investigating the processing parameters for all manufactured products. The products withdrawn were distributed nationally through retail and direct mail and are limited to specific lots of the branded products. The affected lots follow. Protein to Go Milk Chocolate Shake (2.5oz bottle) ------------------------------------------------- Manufacture Date Lot Number ---------------- ---------- 02/09/2012 PP0402 4109 A 02/09/2012 PP0402 4109 B 02/09/2012 PP0402 4109 C 02/09/2012 PP0402 4109 D 02/09/2012 PP0402 4109 E 02/09/2012 PP0402 4109 F 02/09/2012 PP0402 4109 G 02/13/2012 PP0442 4113 02/16/2012 PP0442 4115 03/29/2012 PP0892 4121 04/12/2012 PP1032 4131 A 04/12/2012 PP1032 4131 B 04/25/2012 PP1162 4134 B 04/25/2012 PP1162 4134 C 04/25/2012 PP1162 4134 A 05/03/2012 PP1242 4139 05/08/2012 PP1242 4140 06/07/2012 PP1592 4145 B 06/07/2012 PP1592 4145 A Protein to Go French Vanilla Latte (2.5oz bottle) ------------------------------------------------- Manufacture Date Lot Number ---------------- ---------- 09/08/2011 PP2511 4066 A 09/08/2011 PP2511 4066 B 10/11/2011 PP2841 4079 10/18/2011 PP2911 4086 12/06/2011 PP3401 4103 02/13/2012 PP0442 4112 04/02/2012 PP0932 4122 04/04/2012 PP0952 4125 04/11/2012 PP1022 4129 04/24/2012 PP1152 4133 A 04/24/2012 PP1152 4133 B 04/24/2012 PP1152 4133 C 05/01/2012 PP1222 4138 A 05/01/2012 PP1222 4138 B 05/01/2012 PP1222 4138 C 05/08/2012 PP1292 4141 06/08/2012 PP1592 4146 A 06/08/2012 PP1592 4146 B Nutritional Resources Protein Wave gelatin (6oz cup) ---------------------------------------------------- Manufacture Date Lot Number ---------------- ---------- 05/03/2012 PP 1242 6123 Body Choice Protein Shots (3oz vial) ------------------------------------------------- Manufacture Date Lot Number ---------------- ---------- 12/20/2011 PP 3541 2924 Consumers who have purchased any of the above products can return them to the place of purchase or to Protica for a full refund. Consumers with any questions should contact Protica at 1-800- PROTICA (1-800-776-8422). Protica, founded in 2001, is headquartered in Whitehall, Pennsylvania. The Company relocated from Horsham, Pennsylvania, to the Lehigh Valley in January 2009, occupying and rehabilitating the former vacant Lehigh Valley Dairy Plant near Allentown. Protica has approximately 60 employees and is privately held. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals From Suit Dismissals Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action involving a subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc., Garcia v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada. The complaint was brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of individual life insurance policies for which, unless the beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits were placed in retained asset accounts. The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose material information about the accounts, the Company wrongfully delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and pre and post-judgment interest. In February 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court. As previously reported, in December 2009, an earlier purported nationwide class action raising substantially similar allegations brought by the same plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, was dismissed. In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint, Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in state court and removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint makes allegations under Illinois law, substantially similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf of a class of Illinois residents whose death benefit claims were settled by retained assets accounts. In March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop the Company as a defendant and add Pruco Life Insurance Company as a defendant and is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company. In November 2011, the complaint was dismissed. In December 2011, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/ -- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both retail and institutional customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other countries. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Summary Judg. Bid Pending in "Clark" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In February 2011, a fifth amended complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company. The complaint brought on behalf of a purported class of California, Indiana, Ohio and Texas residents who purchased individual health insurance policies alleges that Prudential Insurance failed to disclose that it had ceased selling this type of policy in 1981 and that, as a result, premiums would increase significantly. The complaint alleges claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and omission, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and California's Unfair Competition Law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. The matter was originally filed in 2008 and certain of the claims in the first four complaints were dismissed. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. That motion is pending decision by the court. In July 2012, Prudential Insurance moved for summary judgment on certain of plaintiff's claims. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/ -- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both retail and institutional customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other countries. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Cert. Bid in N.J. Consolidated Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in violation of state law. The complaint seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. In March 2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the federal overtime claim. Separately, in March 2008, a purported nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to pay its agents overtime and provide other benefits in violation of California and federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the Bouder matter. Subsequent amendments to the complaint have resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment laws. In February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008 and moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of the named plaintiffs. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the state law claims. In August 2010, the district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal overtime claims. The motion for class certification of the state law claims is pending. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/ -- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both retail and institutional customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other countries. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Certification Bid in SGLI/VGLI MDL Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- From July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class actions were filed challenging Prudential Financial, Inc.'s use of retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life insurance contract owned by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces. In 2011, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Judicial Panel for Multi- District Litigation as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation. The consolidated complaint alleges that the use of the retained assets accounts that earn interest and are available to be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in whole or in part, at any time, to settle death benefit claims is in violation of federal law, and asserts claims of breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, equitable relief and pre and post-judgment interest. In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was denied. In January 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/ -- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both retail and institutional customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other countries. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit involving a Prudential Financial, Inc. subsidiary remains stayed in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")-governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits. In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the outcome of a case involving another insurer that is on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/ -- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services to both retail and institutional customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other countries. SLM CORP: Awaits Approval of $35MM Securities Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- SLM Corporation is awaiting court approval of its settlement of the class action lawsuit captioned In Re SLM Corporation Securities Litigation, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On January 31, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging the Company and certain officers violated federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's financial results for year-end 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. This case and other actions arising out of the same circumstances and alleged acts were consolidated. Earlier this year, the court certified a class, appointed class counsel and appointed a class representative. On March 23, 2012, the parties agreed to a preliminary settlement pursuant to which the Company would pay $35 million to be funded by its insurers, which settlement is subject to final Court approval. The settlement is also subject to certain termination rights of the parties and the satisfaction of certain conditions precedent. The Company can provide no assurance that it will finalize the settlement. The Company continues to vigorously deny all claims asserted against it. SOUTHERN COPPER: Appeals in Consolidated Suit vs. AMC Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals in the consolidated litigation against Americas Mining Corporation, et al., remain pending, according to Southern Copper Corporation's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Three purported class action derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (New Castle County) late in December 2004 and early January 2005 relating to the proposed merger transaction between the Company and Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (the "Transaction"), which was completed effective April 1, 2005. On January 31, 2005, the three actions -- Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corporation ("AMC"), et al., Civil Action No. 961- N, Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and Southern Peru Copper Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 969-N, and James Sousa v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 978-N -- were consolidated into one action, captioned, In re Southern Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. Civil Action No. 961-N; the complaint filed by Lemon Bay was designated as the operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit. The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its common stockholders; the defendants in the consolidated action are AMC, German Larrea Mota- Velasco, Genaro Larrea Mota-Velasco, Oscar Gonzalez Rocha, Emilio Carrillo Gamboa, Jaime Fernando Collazo Gonzalez, Xavier Garcia de Quevedo Topete, Armando Ortega Gomez and Juan Rebolledo Gout (together, the "AMC Defendants"), Carlos Ruiz Sacristan, Harold S. Handelsman, Gilberto Perezalonso Cifuentes, and Luis Miguel Palomino Bonilla (together, the "Special Committee Defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Transaction was the result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's directors and was not entirely fair to the Company and its minority stockholders. On December 21, 2010, the Court dismissed the Special Committee Defendants from the action. On October 14, 2011, the Court issued an opinion on this action finding that SCC had paid AMC too much stock consideration in the Transaction. The Court issued a revised final order and judgment on December 29, 2011. The Court decided that the AMC Defendants were jointly and severally liable for damages in the amount of $1,347 million plus $684.6 million of pre-judgment interest. Post-judgment interest continues to accrue from October 15, 2011. The Court decided that the award is payable by AMC with cash, or with the return of a number of shares of SCC equal in value to award, or by SCC cancelling an equivalent number of shares owned by AMC, or by any combination thereof, so long as the total is equivalent to the amount of the judgment plus accrued post- judgment interest. The Court also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $304.7 million, or 15% of the judgment, plus post-judgment interest, payable by SCC out of the award and not from existing SCC's cash. On January 20, 2012, the AMC defendants appealed the Court's decisions. On the same date, SCC appealed the Court's decision related to the award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 3, 2012, the Court accepted the security provided by AMC and granted a stay of the judgment pending final resolution of the appeal. SPRINT NEXTEL: To Arbitrate Claims for Bogus Roaming Fees --------------------------------------------------------- Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that claims that Sprint Nextel improperly charges bogus roaming fees will head to arbitration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Elevent Circuit ruled, declining to find the class action waiver unconscionable. James Pendergast brought a federal class action against Sprint Nextel, Sprint Solutions and Sprint Spectrum in 2008 for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The seven-year Sprint client estimated his individual damages at about $20. Pointing to a 2007 amendment to its Terms and Conditions, however, Sprint said that clients had to arbitrate all disputes except for those within small claims court jurisdiction. After the Southern District of Florida compelled arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, Mr. Pendergast told the Atlanta-based federal appeals court that the class action waiver is unconscionable, and that this also dooms the arbitration clause. In the meantime, the Supreme Court defended arbitration clauses against bans enacted by some states in Concepcion v. AT&T Corp. Citing this case and Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, its own decision adopting Concepcion, the 11th Circuit affirmed on Aug. 20. "Resolution of Pendergast's appeal requires only a straightforward application of Concepcion and Cruz," Judge Frank Hull wrote for a three-member panel. "We need not decide whether the class action waiver here is unconscionable under Florida law or if it frustrates the remedial purposes of the FDUTPA, because to the extent Florida law would invalidate the class action waiver, it would still be preempted by the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act]. "Pendergast's rationales for invalidity of the class action waiver under Florida unconscionability doctrine and the FDUTPA are essentially the same. Pendergast contends the class action waiver precludes him and other Sprint customers from obtaining meaningful relief because their claims cannot, as a practical matter, be pursued individually." He added: "We conclude that we need not reach the questions of whether Florida law would invalidate the class action waiver in the parties' contract because, to the extent it does, it would be preempted by the FAA. Under Concepcion, both the class action waiver and the arbitration clause must be enforced according to their terms." A copy of the Opinion in Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, et al., No. 09-10612 (11th Cir.), is available at: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200910612.pdf ST. LOUIS, MO: Inmates Want to Turn Suit Into Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a lawyer representing men who were held for months in the city jail in cases of mistaken identity asked to turn the federal cases into a class action against the St. Louis police, sheriff's office, corrections and city officials. James O. Hacking, who represents Cedric M. Wright and Dwayne A. Jackson, says four other inmates have told him they too were wrongfully arrested and jailed. Mr. Wright, in his complaint filed in January, claims he was held in jail for 2 months on charges against another man who was already in jail. Mr. Jackson, in his complaint filed this month, says he spent 3 months in jail on charges against another man with the same name. "Local news reports have indicated that there are many more individuals who have been wrongfully incarcerated due to the inadequate policies and procedures used by the defendants in identifying individuals," attorney Mr. Hacking wrote in his amended complaint. The class would include all those jailed by officials' mistakes since April 2010. A copy of the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint in Wright v. Slay, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00107 (E.D. Mo.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/24/IDClass.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: James O. Hacking, III, Esq. Jennifer L. Shoulberg, Esq. HACKING LAW PRACTICE, LLC 34 N. Gore, Suite 101 St. Louis, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 961-8200 E-mail: jim@hackinglawpractice.com SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend Commercial Claims Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- The operations of Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") are subject to all operating hazards and risks normally incidental to handling, storing and delivering combustible liquids such as propane. The Partnership has been, and will continue to be, a defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as a result of these operating hazards and risks, and as a result of other aspects of its business. In this last regard, the Partnership currently is a defendant in lawsuits in several states, including two putative class actions in which no class has yet been certified. The complaints allege a number of commercial claims, including as to the Partnership's pricing, fee disclosure and tank ownership, under various consumer statutes, the Uniform Commercial Code, common law and antitrust law. Based on the nature of the allegations under these commercial lawsuits, the Partnership believes that the lawsuits are without merit and the Partnership is contesting each of these lawsuits vigorously. With respect to the pending commercial lawsuits, other than for legal defense fees and expenses, based on the merits of the allegations and discovery to date, no liability for a loss contingency is required. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 23, 2012. TRAVELZOO INC: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Travelzoo Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. Beginning on August 9, 2011, two purported class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 6, 2012, a Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint was filed. The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") alleging that between March 16, 2011, and July 21, 2011, the Company and/or the individual defendants purportedly issued materially false and misleading statements. In particular, the complaint asserts, among other things, allegations challenging certain statements relating to the Company's growth. The complaint also makes allegations regarding the Company's Getaways business and asserts that certain officers and directors sold stock while in possession of materially adverse non-public information. The action seeks unspecified damages and the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the action. The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. TRUE NUTRITION: Recalls Whey Protein Products --------------------------------------------- True Nutrition is announcing a recall of Whey Protein Isolate, Whey Protein Concentrate and Hydrolyzed Whey Protein, because their labels fail to declare milk as the source of the whey. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk and milk derivatives run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Whey Protein Isolate, Whey Protein Concentrate and Hydrolyzed Whey Protein were distributed through the Web site http://www.truenutrition.com/ These products can be identified by the following names and lot numbers: * Whey Protein Concentrate (1lb) - Batch/lot: 0120712, Exp. Date: 05/2015 * Whey Protein Isolate Cold-Filtration (1lb) - Batch/lot: 0030812, Exp. Date: 07/2015 * Whey Protein Isolate MicroFiltrated (1lb) - Batch/lot: 0040812, Exp. Date: 07/2015 * Whey Protein Isolate Cross-Flow Microfiltration (1lb) - Batch/lot: 0730712, Exp. Date: 07/2015 * Hydrolyzed Whey Protein High Grade (1lb) - Batch/lot: 0680512, Exp. Date: 05/2015 Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316892.htm As most customers know whey protein is derived from milk. True Nutrition shipped the above whey protein products beginning May 2nd 2012 without stating: whey is derived from 'milk' on their labels through a company printing mistake. This product recall notice has been initiated because said products contain milk ingredients but do not list on the labels that the ingredients are derived from milk. If you are allergic or have extreme sensitivity to milk, you should discontinue use. In addition, if you may have further distributed this product, please identify these individuals and notify them at once of this product recall. If you have any questions, call Carl Manes at 760-433-5376, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time). This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration. UNITED COLLECTION: Court Allows FDCPA Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM, reports that a federal appeals court on Aug. 24 ruled that a consumer's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case against a collection agency can proceed even though the consumer was found to be part of a class that had previously settled with the firm. The panel found that the firm had given insufficient notice to all potential members of the class. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York sided with the consumer in Hecht v. United Collection Bureau, Inc. The three- judge panel noted that the company's notification of a previous class action settlement for the exact violations Hecht alleged was not sufficient and that her case should be allowed to move forward. Hecht initially filed suit against United Collection Bureau, Inc. (UCB), alleging that the debt collector violated the FDCPA by "plac[ing] telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller's identity," and by failing to disclose in its initial communication "that the debt collector [wa]s attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained w[ould] be used for that purpose." UCB moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. UCB argued that Hecht's suit was precluded under the doctrine of res judicata because Hecht alleged facts and violations already litigated, settled, and disposed of by a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Gravina. A District Court judge in Connecticut agreed with UCB and dismissed Hecht's case. In the Gravina case, UCB agreed to pay $13,254 to a class of consumers. Since the class was potentially so large (some two million people), the company paid the money to a charity. Each named plaintiff also received $1,000 under the FDCPA and an additional $1,500 "in recognition for their services to the Settlement Class Members." To notify potential class members of the settlement, UCB ran one announcement in national newspaper USA Today. In opposing her case's dismissal, Hecht did not dispute that she was included in the Gravina Settlement Class definition, nor did she dispute that she had not attempted to opt out of the Gravina settlement, to ask the Gravina court to reconsider its Settlement Order, or to appeal the Settlement Order. Instead, Hecht argued that the Settlement Order did not bind her because the USA Today notice did not comport with due process. The court agreed and overturned the ruling, sending it back down to the District Court for further action. Specifically, the panel said "aside from individual mailed notice, the defendant could have also undertaken a more extensive notification campaign -- including electronic media, local publications, and the like -- that would have been more than the 'mere gesture' exemplified by the one-time USA Today notice." UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Cert. Ruling in One of Two Canadian Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion to certify a class in one of the two outstanding class action lawsuits in Canada, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In Canada, three purported class-action cases were filed against the Company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by the Company under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class- action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in the Company's favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to the Company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and the Company is appealing that decision. The request to certify the case in Quebec was heard in February 2012. The Company has denied all liability and its vigorously defending the two outstanding cases. The Company says there are multiple factors that prevent it from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters, including: (1) the Company is vigorously defending itself and believes that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of these matters. Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operation or liquidity. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Suit Still Pending in New York Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. United Parcel Service, Inc. was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in this case. There are multiple factors that prevent the Company from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the Company's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, and the scope of the plaintiffs' claims is therefore unclear; (2) the scope and size of the proposed class is ill-defined; (3) there are significant legal questions about the adequacy and standing of the putative class representatives; and (4) the Company believes that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses. Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. UNITED PARCEL: Defends Two Suits Over Rebranding of UPS Store ------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. is defending itself and a subsidiary against two lawsuits relating to the rebranding or purchase of The UPS Store franchises, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. UPS and its subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in two lawsuits about the rebranding or purchase of The UPS Store franchises -- Morgate (California Superior Court) and Samica (United States District Court). * In Morgate, the plaintiffs are 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store and a certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand. The trial court entered judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012. The trial court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment against the certified class, which was reversed in January 2012. * In Samica, about half of the approximately 200 plaintiffs rebranded and half purchased new The UPS Store franchises. Summary judgment for UPS was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in December 2011. Plaintiffs have filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The Company says there are multiple factors that prevent it from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from whatever remaining aspects of these cases proceed including: (1) the Company is vigorously defending itself and believes it has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) it remains uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present. Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. -- http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. US NURSING: Accused of Not Paying All Wages to Replacement Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shameka Bolton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Nursing Corp., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG12640766 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 25, 2012) is brought on behalf of a class of replacement staff to challenge the alleged unfair and unlawful practices in which the Defendants have engaged with regard to paying the Replacement Staff all the wages they have earned and doing so in a timely manner. The Plaintiff seeks restitution and compensation on behalf of herself and the Replacement Staff for unpaid wages, including meal and rest period premiums, overtime premiums, statutory penalties, and interest. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Ms. Bolton is a resident of California. She worked for U.S. Nursing at four health care facilities in California between January 2011 and the present. U.S. Nursing is a Colorado corporation headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado. U.S. Nursing is a temporary services employer that contracts with health care facilities in California to supply health care providers to perform services for the client health care facilities during trade disputes. The Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Company removed the lawsuit on August 24, 2012, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. U.S. Nursing argues that the removal is proper because citizenship of the parties is diverse. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-04466 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan E. Gertler, Esq. Dan L. Gildor, Esq. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 381-5599 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572 E-mail: jon@chavezgertler.com dan@chavezgertler.com - and - Lori E. Andrus, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas E. Geidt, Esq. Paul W. Cane, Jr., Esq. Jeffrey P. Michalowski, Esq. Chase W. Ensign, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 55 Second Street, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: tomgeidt@paulhastings.com paulcane@paulhastings.com effmichalowski@paulhastings.com chaseensign@paulhastings.com VOLUME SERVICES: Sued for Denying Tips to Servers & Runners ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Volume Services America dba Centerplate swiped the mandatory tips from its servers and runners at Yankee Stadium, a class action claims in New York County Supreme Court. A copy of the Complaint in Ryan v. Volume Services America, Inc. d/b/a Centerplate, et al., Index No. 652970/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/24/AtYankee.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Eric J. Gitig, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 W. ROSS MACDONALD: Crown Blames Government in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In a Statement of Defence released on Aug. 23, Ontario's Crown claims that any inadequacies in the operation and management of the Brantford-area W. Ross Macdonald School for the blind were the result of funding decisions made at the "highest levels of government." "I am shocked that the Crown would blame the abuse of vulnerable children solely on Ontario government ministers and the Premier of Ontario," said Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP, representing the plaintiffs. "The Crown needs to stop blaming others and finally take responsibility for what happened at the W. Ross Macdonald School." The case involves allegations that the Ontario government failed to operate or supervise the W. Ross Macdonald School in a way that ensured the safety and well-being of its students. It is alleged that those caring for the students at W. Ross Macdonald were abusive and took advantage of the students' visual disabilities and that they endured physical, sexual and mental abuse. The action was commenced by Robert Seed, a former student who attended the school from 1954 to 1965 as a young boy. "These former students were children and teenagers when they were abused," said Mr. Baert. "The Crown needs to realize that it had a duty to care for these children. Since it did not, at least let former students see justice in their lifetime." The W. Ross Macdonald School opened in 1872 as the Ontario Institution for the Education of the Blind. It is one of two Ontario-run residential schools in Ontario for blind, deafblind and visually impaired students. For further information: Kirk Baert, Esq. Koskie Minsky LLP Telephone: (416) 595-2117 E-mail: kbaert@kmlaw.ca XCEL ENERGY: Appeal From 2nd "Comer" Suit Dismissal Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against Xcel Energy Inc., et al., remains pending, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., filed a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi. The complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their property. Plaintiffs base their claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence. Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiary Northern States Power Company (NSP-Minnesota). The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown. The defendants, including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In March 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for dismissal. In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. While Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote, given the nature of this case and any surrounding uncertainty, it could potentially have a material impact on Xcel Energy's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. No accrual has been recorded for this matter. ZIPCAR INC: Class Suit Over Late Fee Charges Dismissed in July -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit relating to Zipcar, Inc.'s late fee charges was dismissed in July 2012, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On July 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Reed v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv- 11340-RGS. The lawsuit alleged that the Company's late fees were unlawful penalties. The lawsuit purported to assert claims against the Company for unjust enrichment, money had and received, for declaratory judgment, and for unfair and deceptive trade practices under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 93A, and requested certification of a class consisting of all Zipcar members who have incurred late fees at the presently imposed rates. The plaintiff sought unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement of the revenues and/or profits that the Company allegedly received from imposing late fees, as well as a declaration that such late fees were void, unenforceable, and/or unconscionable, and an award of treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On November 10, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on July 31, 2012, the court granted its motion to dismiss, dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. ********* 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 * * *